POTUS TRUMP : CORRUPT PRESS : GENERALIZED DEFAMATION, LIBEL AND SLANDER ISSUES

FEB 6TH     SINCE TIME BEGAN : salus populi suprema est lex - the right of the people is the supreme law : IN TRUTH WE TRUST     2017 ADE
ESSENTIALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL JUSTICE : MOTHER EARTH TIPPING POINT LAWS UNFOLDED
THE "JUSTIFIED" WAR DOCTRINE & THE "JUST SOCIETY" PRINCIPLE
WHAT IS THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTINUED POTUS TRUMP
PUBLIC CRITIQUE OF DOMESTIC & INTERNATIONAL PRESS BEING CORRUPT ?
Jus In Bello versus Jus Ad Bellum
Is it reasonable for individual journalists and corporate media actors to feel harmed through the continued POTUS Donald Trump castigation of the "press" as being fundamentally and continually "corrupt" ? ... Is there the likelihood of prosecuted claims for damages ? What individual freedom of expression limits do apply to the individual and politically constituted Donald Trump (pre and post election criteria) ... So Who Is Asking ? ... Is it hypocritical for individual and / or corporate media actors to seek redress in damage awards and a cease and desist order ? ... Presidential duty of care within the 1776 ideals in the modern era of defined human, civil and pilitical rights : Hohfeld rights and duties equilibriums.

 Yale Law Journal : "an observation by Mr. Justice Holmes is peculiarly applicable: 'As long as the matter to be considered is debated in artificial terms, there is danger of being led by a technical definition to apply a certain name, and then to deduce consequences which have no relation to the grounds on which the name was applied.' Guy v. Donald, 203 U. S. 406. "Instead of rejecting convenient terms because they are ambiguous or not comprehensive, it is better to explain their meanings, or, in the language of old Hobbes [editorial notation], 'to snuff them with distinctions and definitions,' so as to give a better light." : political philosophy : Thomas Paine : plus, the Dreyfus Affair legacies : Fundamental Human Rights Declaration : The "Thin Skin" criteria : political expressions and "actual malice" : Black's Law : "The deliberate intent to commit an injury, as evidenced by external circumstances. Also termed express malice; malice in fact. Cf. implied malice. 2. Defamation. Knowledge (by the person who utters or published a defamatory statement) that a statement is false, or reckless disregard about whether the statement is true. To recover for defamation, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must overcome the defendant’s qualified privilege by providing the defendant’s actual malice. And for certain other types of claims, a plaintiff must prove actual malice to recover presumed or punitive damages" : n.b. Evelyn Beatrice Hall's ideal "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" : Friends Of Voltaire : " d'Alembert the Thinker, Diderot the Talker, Galiani the Wit, Vauvenargues the Aphorist, d'Holbach the Host, Grimm the Journalist, Helvétius the Contradiction, Turgot the Statesman, Beaumarchais the Playwright, and Condorcet the Aristocrat.[4]" : The Encyclopedia of Enlightenment.
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
"Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Just war theory (Latin: jus bellum iustum) is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers, and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: "right to go to war" (jus ad bellum) and "right conduct in war" (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war, and the second the moral conduct within war.[1] Recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of Just War theory—jus post bellum—dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction.
Just War theory postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.[2]
Opponents of Just War theory claim that there has never been a political philosopher who argued that war poses any real benefit to any participating party. In a large number of cases, philosophers state that individuals need not be of guilty conscience if required to fight. A few nobilify the virtues of the soldier while declaring spite for war itself. A few, such as Rousseau, argue for insurrection against oppressive rule.
The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition," deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. The just war tradition also considers the writings of various philosophers and lawyers through history, and examines both their philosophical visions of war's ethical limits and whether their thoughts have contributed to the body of conventions that have evolved to guide war and warfare.[3]" : wikipedia : Table of Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. The Jus Ad Bellum Convention
  3. The Principles Of Jus In Bello
  4. Jus post bellum
  5. Conclusion
  6. References and Further Reading
ADDENDUM : "Consider the demands for reparations. A defeated aggressor may just be asked to pay for the damage incurred by the war (as justice demands of criminals that they pay for their crimes). But to what extent should the reparations extend? Should there be demands for retribution and deterrence added in, so that those deemed responsible for their aggression should be put on trial and suitably punished (and what would “suitable” mean in this instance – that Saddam Hussein stand trial for his invasion of Kuwait implies that George W Bush similarly stand trial for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?). In forming the conditions of defeat, should neutral third parties be turned to so as to avoid later accusations of “victor’s justice” and the partiality that such justice can invoke or imply, or does victory present the victor with the ultimate moral wreath to justify whatever demands seen appropriate or fitting?"
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
POLITICAL COMMENTARIES PUBLISHED BY
Shqwi'qwal   RALPH CHARLES GOODWIN   Yuxwuletun
CV2017 & ADDRESS
1.250.709.1809
Global Free Prior  AMBASSADOR : FPIC : TERMS GUIDE  Informed Consent
 
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)