Is Our Soon to be First Lady a Positive Role Model

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

I would rather have Eisenhower again, Best president we have had in the last 70 years. No Clinton, Obama , Bush or Trump. But what can you do?

Please, he golfed more than governed

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah, because selling jewelry is such an evil thing to do. Man you are a dumbass.

selling jewelry? I thought she was selling what Donald Trump brags about grabbing

You stated jewelry, I guess you are a looney liberal, at least your childish games amuse me.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Yeah, because selling jewelry is such an evil thing to do. Man you are a dumbass.

selling jewelry? I thought she was selling what Donald Trump brags about grabbing

You stated jewelry, I guess you are a looney liberal, at least your childish games amuse me.

the daughter was whoring jewelry. Melania was whoring her bod

not that there's anything wrong with that


but does that make her a role model for young women you know?

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah, because selling jewelry is such an evil thing to do. Man you are a dumbass.

selling jewelry? I thought she was selling what Donald Trump brags about grabbing

You stated jewelry, I guess you are a looney liberal, at least your childish games amuse me.

the daughter was whoring jewelry. Melania was whoring her bod

not that there's anything wrong with that


but does that make her a role model for young women you know?

I never made any First Lady a role model. I don't think athletes, actors, actresses, singers, politicians or famous people as good role models.

 

[MaryL]

I would rather have Eisenhower again, Best president we have had in the last 70 years. No Clinton, Obama , Bush or Trump. But what can you do?

Please, he golfed more than governed

And...?

 

[Papageorgio]

I would rather have Eisenhower again, Best president we have had in the last 70 years. No Clinton, Obama , Bush or Trump. But what can you do?

Please, he golfed more than governed

Obama golfed and played basketball, not sure of the point.

 

[Spare_change]

Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas-based First Amendment attorney and managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group. Follow him on Twitter: @marcorandazza. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN)During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump famously fired a broadside at the First Amendment by promising to "open up the libel laws." Today, his wife, Melania Trump, has a case pending against writers who she says defamed her, and some speculate that this is only the beginning of the Trump family war on the First Amendment.

But is it really? I don't think so.

Let's look at this case:

In their zeal to tear Donald Trump down, some attack his wife. (Even the Mafia doesn't attack wives or children; many of those who hate Donald Trump fail to reach the mob's decency level.) So, given our profound national commitment to freedom of expression, Melania Trump will need to have thick skin as the wife of a president.

She may not need to this time.

In 1964, Justice William Brennan wrote, in the landmark defamation case New York Times v. Sullivan, that our Constitution demands that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

Because of that, someone like Melania Trump cannot win a defamation claim unless she proves "actual malice." As I explained in an article last February, this test has nothing to do with our everyday understanding of the word "malice." It means that the defendant -- the writers, in this case -- published the statement knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

Establishing this is a challenge, but not one that we have deemed insurmountable, as the Sullivan decision left adequate legal space for even the most famous plaintiff to prevail.

In the Maryland case, Melania Trump accepted the Sullivan challenge and brought suit against the UK-based Daily Mail and an American blogger, Webster Tarpley. Both had reported that she previously worked as an escort -- a claim she credibly denies.

Despite anything that one might want to say about her husband, falsely accusing Melania Trump of being, essentially, a prostitute is (and should be) legally sanctionable.

Americans should have broad latitude to criticize, mock, and investigate public figures. However, that does not mean that there are no limits. Even Justice Brennan did not go that far.

It's telling that Melania Trump didn't sue the Daily Mail in the UK. The UK has a much lower standard for proving defamation, and it would have been a friendlier place to bring the claim. It's hard to imagine that her expensive lawyers didn't consider that. That they likely did suggests a high degree of confidence that she was confident confronting Sullivan head-on.

And what about the US-based Tarpley? He wrote in a statement in September that "her lawsuit is a blatant attempt to intimidate not only me, but journalists of all stripes into remaining silent with regard to public figures" and that the "lawsuit is a direct affront to First Amendment principles and free speech in our democratic society."

Tarpley is over-playing his hand. I haven't seen anyone shy about criticizing any of the Trumps. Nobody appears to have been "silent." This case, if successful, will do no violence to the First Amendment, nor will any responsible writer likely fear the Trumps. You can say whatever you like about Mrs. Trump, if it is your opinion, or even a reasonably-sourced erroneous statement of fact.

But Tarpley may have trouble on that score: he raises the defense that he was "only repeating rumors" about Melania Trump. While "rumors" are not a reasonable source, some courts recognize the defense of "neutral reportage." That defense lets you get away with sourcing a "rumor," but only if you report it as such, and the publication is "reasonable."

Is that the case here? If I were defending him, I wouldn't want to rely on that defense.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just a tip for some of our cohorts here.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Man,, THAT is stupid .... based on your logic, your mom was whoring her ass so your dad would bring home a paycheck every week.

Did you just bring my family into this?

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

I would rather have Eisenhower again, Best president we have had in the last 70 years. No Clinton, Obama , Bush or Trump. But what can you do?

Please, he golfed more than governed

And...?

you must have loved Obama

 

[charwin95]

What difference does it make? She was a model. So what? Is that mean she was a different person?
If I rape someone when I was a teen..... Is that mean there are two of me?

I don't see how this is an apples to apples comparison. I think this is invalid, because labeling girls is totally different from labeling rapists. Girls are always different every year. Rapists can be different if they rape for sexual pleasure. But half of rapists rape for control, and that doesn't change. So this pre conditions how many of you you are and how many of girls girls are.

Bottom line...... she was and is the same person regardless of the age.

So what? The presidency is a competitive position. To be the wife of Trump is also a competitive position. Being a First Lady is a competitive position. Melania must be good at competition. Nothing wrong with that. The mother of emperor Nero, Agripinna, challenged the lead prostitite of Rome for a competition. The girls ended up with a tie, each finishing 25 men, when the sun rose, by the way.

In my book and so with other republicans I know....... She has the worst record to come on board as FLOTUS.
If you think she is a good role model for you that's your call.

But there ain't no way.... I can honestly tell myself or my family that she is a positive role model.

Why? Do you speak a foreign language? She does. Or do you know the high table etiquette? Or do you know how to negotiate daily power games? Or do you know how to manage your body? She does. Successful public figures have to be good at all corners of human psychology. Or are you a fat acceptance movement flag bearer? Confess. You LGBT/jesusfreak yeah? .

I speak 6 languages.
What is that has anything to do with your fascination to FLOTUS?
People liked and admired her because she is pretty. **** me.

 

[charwin95]

Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas-based First Amendment attorney and managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group. Follow him on Twitter: @marcorandazza. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN)During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump famously fired a broadside at the First Amendment by promising to "open up the libel laws." Today, his wife, Melania Trump, has a case pending against writers who she says defamed her, and some speculate that this is only the beginning of the Trump family war on the First Amendment.

But is it really? I don't think so.

Let's look at this case:

In their zeal to tear Donald Trump down, some attack his wife. (Even the Mafia doesn't attack wives or children; many of those who hate Donald Trump fail to reach the mob's decency level.) So, given our profound national commitment to freedom of expression, Melania Trump will need to have thick skin as the wife of a president.

She may not need to this time.

In 1964, Justice William Brennan wrote, in the landmark defamation case New York Times v. Sullivan, that our Constitution demands that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

Because of that, someone like Melania Trump cannot win a defamation claim unless she proves "actual malice." As I explained in an article last February, this test has nothing to do with our everyday understanding of the word "malice." It means that the defendant -- the writers, in this case -- published the statement knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

Establishing this is a challenge, but not one that we have deemed insurmountable, as the Sullivan decision left adequate legal space for even the most famous plaintiff to prevail.

In the Maryland case, Melania Trump accepted the Sullivan challenge and brought suit against the UK-based Daily Mail and an American blogger, Webster Tarpley. Both had reported that she previously worked as an escort -- a claim she credibly denies.

Despite anything that one might want to say about her husband, falsely accusing Melania Trump of being, essentially, a prostitute is (and should be) legally sanctionable.

Americans should have broad latitude to criticize, mock, and investigate public figures. However, that does not mean that there are no limits. Even Justice Brennan did not go that far.

It's telling that Melania Trump didn't sue the Daily Mail in the UK. The UK has a much lower standard for proving defamation, and it would have been a friendlier place to bring the claim. It's hard to imagine that her expensive lawyers didn't consider that. That they likely did suggests a high degree of confidence that she was confident confronting Sullivan head-on.

And what about the US-based Tarpley? He wrote in a statement in September that "her lawsuit is a blatant attempt to intimidate not only me, but journalists of all stripes into remaining silent with regard to public figures" and that the "lawsuit is a direct affront to First Amendment principles and free speech in our democratic society."

Tarpley is over-playing his hand. I haven't seen anyone shy about criticizing any of the Trumps. Nobody appears to have been "silent." This case, if successful, will do no violence to the First Amendment, nor will any responsible writer likely fear the Trumps. You can say whatever you like about Mrs. Trump, if it is your opinion, or even a reasonably-sourced erroneous statement of fact.

But Tarpley may have trouble on that score: he raises the defense that he was "only repeating rumors" about Melania Trump. While "rumors" are not a reasonable source, some courts recognize the defense of "neutral reportage." That defense lets you get away with sourcing a "rumor," but only if you report it as such, and the publication is "reasonable."

Is that the case here? If I were defending him, I wouldn't want to rely on that defense.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just a tip for some of our cohorts here.

Stay focus.
Topic is about Melanie Trump..... is she a positive role model?

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't see how this is an apples to apples comparison. I think this is invalid, because labeling girls is totally different from labeling rapists. Girls are always different every year. Rapists can be different if they rape for sexual pleasure. But half of rapists rape for control, and that doesn't change. So this pre conditions how many of you you are and how many of girls girls are.

Bottom line...... she was and is the same person regardless of the age.

So what? The presidency is a competitive position. To be the wife of Trump is also a competitive position. Being a First Lady is a competitive position. Melania must be good at competition. Nothing wrong with that. The mother of emperor Nero, Agripinna, challenged the lead prostitite of Rome for a competition. The girls ended up with a tie, each finishing 25 men, when the sun rose, by the way.

In my book and so with other republicans I know....... She has the worst record to come on board as FLOTUS.
If you think she is a good role model for you that's your call.

But there ain't no way.... I can honestly tell myself or my family that she is a positive role model.

Why? Do you speak a foreign language? She does. Or do you know the high table etiquette? Or do you know how to negotiate daily power games? Or do you know how to manage your body? She does. Successful public figures have to be good at all corners of human psychology. Or are you a fat acceptance movement flag bearer? Confess. You LGBT/jesusfreak yeah? .

I speak 6 languages.
What is that has anything to do with your fascination to FLOTUS?
People liked and admired her because she is pretty. **** me.

Nobody will **** you, that is why you cry like an insecure whining little *****. Thanks for sharing your sad lonely life.

 

[anotherlife]

I don't see how this is an apples to apples comparison. I think this is invalid, because labeling girls is totally different from labeling rapists. Girls are always different every year. Rapists can be different if they rape for sexual pleasure. But half of rapists rape for control, and that doesn't change. So this pre conditions how many of you you are and how many of girls girls are.

Bottom line...... she was and is the same person regardless of the age.

So what? The presidency is a competitive position. To be the wife of Trump is also a competitive position. Being a First Lady is a competitive position. Melania must be good at competition. Nothing wrong with that. The mother of emperor Nero, Agripinna, challenged the lead prostitite of Rome for a competition. The girls ended up with a tie, each finishing 25 men, when the sun rose, by the way.

In my book and so with other republicans I know....... She has the worst record to come on board as FLOTUS.
If you think she is a good role model for you that's your call.

But there ain't no way.... I can honestly tell myself or my family that she is a positive role model.

Why? Do you speak a foreign language? She does. Or do you know the high table etiquette? Or do you know how to negotiate daily power games? Or do you know how to manage your body? She does. Successful public figures have to be good at all corners of human psychology. Or are you a fat acceptance movement flag bearer? Confess. You LGBT/jesusfreak yeah? .

I speak 6 languages.
What is that has anything to do with your fascination to FLOTUS?
People liked and admired her because she is pretty. **** me.

Okay, I understand it then, you speak 6 languages, but I speak 66 languages, I win. Whehehe. You hate her because women don't talk to you.

 

[Unkotare]

...
People liked and admired her because she is pretty. ....

Who is?

 

[Spare_change]

Man,, THAT is stupid .... based on your logic, your mom was whoring her ass so your dad would bring home a paycheck every week.

Did you just bring my family into this?

Merely exposing the inanity of your logic.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Merely exposing the inanity of your logic.

Get a LIFE of your own little queer boy or girl or trans whatever

 

[Papageorgio]

Why do you assholes want to demean the First Lady's? Seems pretty petty and childish.

 

[Spare_change]

Merely exposing the inanity of your logic.

Get a LIFE of your own little queer boy or girl or trans whatever

Rule 4c. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster personally.

You are so predictably childish, and so childishly predictable.

 

[charwin95]

Bottom line...... she was and is the same person regardless of the age.

So what? The presidency is a competitive position. To be the wife of Trump is also a competitive position. Being a First Lady is a competitive position. Melania must be good at competition. Nothing wrong with that. The mother of emperor Nero, Agripinna, challenged the lead prostitite of Rome for a competition. The girls ended up with a tie, each finishing 25 men, when the sun rose, by the way.

In my book and so with other republicans I know....... She has the worst record to come on board as FLOTUS.
If you think she is a good role model for you that's your call.

But there ain't no way.... I can honestly tell myself or my family that she is a positive role model.

Why? Do you speak a foreign language? She does. Or do you know the high table etiquette? Or do you know how to negotiate daily power games? Or do you know how to manage your body? She does. Successful public figures have to be good at all corners of human psychology. Or are you a fat acceptance movement flag bearer? Confess. You LGBT/jesusfreak yeah? .

I speak 6 languages.
What is that has anything to do with your fascination to FLOTUS?
People liked and admired her because she is pretty. **** me.

Okay, I understand it then, you speak 6 languages, but I speak 66 languages, I win. Whehehe. You hate her because women don't talk to you.

Wrong again.
I'm done here......... I just have to refer you to a different thread....... called.
This why I love the First Lady.

It's about Michele Obama where they also discuss Melanie Trump as a sex object.

 

[anotherlife]

So what? The presidency is a competitive position. To be the wife of Trump is also a competitive position. Being a First Lady is a competitive position. Melania must be good at competition. Nothing wrong with that. The mother of emperor Nero, Agripinna, challenged the lead prostitite of Rome for a competition. The girls ended up with a tie, each finishing 25 men, when the sun rose, by the way.

In my book and so with other republicans I know....... She has the worst record to come on board as FLOTUS.
If you think she is a good role model for you that's your call.

But there ain't no way.... I can honestly tell myself or my family that she is a positive role model.

Why? Do you speak a foreign language? She does. Or do you know the high table etiquette? Or do you know how to negotiate daily power games? Or do you know how to manage your body? She does. Successful public figures have to be good at all corners of human psychology. Or are you a fat acceptance movement flag bearer? Confess. You LGBT/jesusfreak yeah? .

I speak 6 languages.
What is that has anything to do with your fascination to FLOTUS?
People liked and admired her because she is pretty. **** me.

Okay, I understand it then, you speak 6 languages, but I speak 66 languages, I win. Whehehe. You hate her because women don't talk to you.

Wrong again.
I'm done here......... I just have to refer you to a different thread....... called.
This why I love the First Lady.

It's about Michele Obama where they also discuss Melanie Trump as a sex object.

Okay, but I don't understand the Michelle Obama logic either then. If Michelle Obama wasn't craving fried ribs and ghetto burgers constantly, she would look like a woman too, then we could compare two sex worthy objects. And besides, sex worthiness is not about men or the act. It is about looking as perfect as your individual body can be in its natural form. So everyone is a sex object, and that doesn't take down anything about the person. Hey feminist motherfuckers, can you help out with the explanations here?