Donald Trump came across as exceptionally smug, obnoxious and narcissistic, all attributes that he personally admires in himself and which nauseate more thoughtful minds. He may be business savvy, but he resorted to the most naive counterarguments against Rosie O'Donnell. Any 'adequate' high school debater knows that an ad hominem attack (retorting the logic of an argument by assaulting the person rather than addressing the issue) is a serious technical foul.
It is interesting that, rather than debate the central claim that he is or is not a 'moral compass' by providing evidence of his good deeds, he instead decided to focus his counterattack on her weight, her homosexuality, and her personality. Has he absolutely no sense of the emotional weight of his words on overweight teenage girls, or on young men who want to emulate his success, and who inevitably will adopt his superficial attitude toward vulnerable women already suffering low self-esteem about their appearance? Is this not demonstration enough of his wayward moral compass, which is what Rosie accused him of to begin with?
A lawsuit? Please. His was an impulsive, venomnous assault to an astute and outspoken comedianne who gets paid to give her subjective 'view' of popular culture. She was completely within the job descriptions of her character on the show. Donald Trump has eagerly played the role of a media-starved business tycoon for decades now, so he is fair-game for the spontaneous dialogue that The View was designed for by his friend Barbara Walters. Rosie is neither a professional journalist who is paid to present objective facts without bias, nor a corporate foe with an agenda related to knowingly disrupting his business interests for her personal profit. I cannot therefore see for the life of me how he would have any basis for a lawsuit; if so, she has an equal basis to sue him for slander.
In fact, I see more potential for a successful lawsuit filed against Donald Trump because his comments were clearly and deliberately designed to impair her career as an entertainer by miring her public reputation, whereas he is not an entertainer and her comments were only indirectly about his business affairs.
2006-12-22 11:00:46 · 12 answers · asked by pat800 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Your question isn't really a question so much as an opportunity for you to hear your own voice, isn't it?
2006-12-22 11:03:33 · answer #1 · answered by Joe 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
His legal argument would be defamation of character and slander. He was broke 3 times but never bankrupt. But I believe the first amendment of our constitution say we ALL have the right to free speech so the Donald just wants to cost Poor Rosie a hunk of money to defend herself.
Always remember it doesn't matter if publicity is bad or good as long as it is given. Free publicity is the best kind.
2006-12-22 11:08:39 · answer #2 · answered by mrkmusselman 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he feels hurt and feels the right to get even more money now. The rich always find a way to get richer even when it's not justified. Law experts on TV are saying he'll never win-but who knows. We'll have to wait it out and see what happens. I do hope he loses though. He made some very childish remarks about Rosie's looks, etc. (just like a kid trying to get back at someone who said something "mean" to them). GROW UP ALREADY, DONNY BOY.
2006-12-22 11:10:09 · answer #3 · answered by PROUDJEW 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of direction she could desire to record healthful against him. yet celebrities regularly are seen to be "obtainable" in public besides and that's as a result very puzzling to tutor that any one has slandered or libeled a public discern. And Donald Trump is distinctly in demand too, so it in all probability does not paintings for him to record a healthful the two.
2016-10-05 22:14:43 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought that the SC's ruling in cases like Flynt v. Falwell and New York Times v. Sullivan would prohibit celebrities from taking legal actions against someone who criticizes the celebs.
2006-12-22 11:11:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have freedom of speach and as long as it is the truth.
So he has to prove that it isn't true. If you make the lawsuit it is your obligation to prove that it isn't true and that will be hard because every movie magazine says that to. She can come back and say, I read it here in the national enquirer, that is where I got my information. So then it is not her fault but the fault of the tabloid where she read it. So it will be hard for him to do.
All she has to say is that I was quoting the magazine.
2006-12-22 11:18:50 · answer #6 · answered by Steven 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole thing is to verbose, I am no fan of Rosie's big harsh mouth, and what ever happens I hope that it is solved peacefully, there is no need for another war.
2006-12-22 11:31:27 · answer #7 · answered by pooterilgatto 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that Trump is a total schmuck. To answer your question, while I think a lawsuit would be thrown out, the legal basis is libel.
2006-12-22 11:04:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The only bad publicity is an obituary and then it's bad only if you're dead. They both lack good sense and morals.
2006-12-22 11:04:10 · answer #9 · answered by MH/Citizens Protecting Rights! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ronald started it. I hope Donald does sue that nasty, obnoxious, bull-dike. Nobody likes her anyway. She needs to retire.
Sounds like you are just enjoying the opportunity to show off your Harvard education. Didn't they teach you the legalities of slander and defaming there?
2006-12-22 11:06:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋