Classifieds | Archives | Jobs | About TGT | Contact | Subscribe
 | 
Last updated 4 minutes ago
Printer Friendly Version | TGT@Twitter | RSS Feed |
HOME LOCAL MIDEAST ASIA WORLD BUSINESS SPORT OPINION WRITERS
Norman Pearlstine: Trump’s move to tighten libel laws is unlikely to succeed
September 11, 2018
 Print    Send to Friend

Donald Trump hates to lose unless he wins by losing. So, when it comes to libel laws, the president seems happy to portray himself as a victim.

On Wednesday, in response to the publication of excerpts from author Bob Woodward’s new, critical book on his presidency, Trump called on “Washington politicians” to change our nation’s libel laws.

Earlier this year Trump called libel laws “a sham and a disgrace,” shortly after his lawyers had threatened a possible libel suit in an unsuccessful attempt to block publication of Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.” He then renewed his campaign promise to “open up” America’s libel laws, pledging “to take a strong look” at them.

Neither Trump nor Congress can easily change defamation laws, and his own inflammatory rhetoric would most certainly be a casualty were libel laws toughened.

Trump has never brought a successful defamation case in court. Still, his lawsuits, including litigation deemed frivolous, are an effective tool for attacking his critics, forcing them to spend lots of time and money defending themselves.

A 2016 USA Today analysis found that Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 lawsuits over 30 years in US state and federal courts, including seven speech-related actions brought against media outlets and other critics. It and a subsequent report commissioned by the American Bar Association showed these actions were part of a broader attack on the media that included countless cease-and-desist letters and threats of much more litigation.

Trump’s ability to change libel laws is limited by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court, and the fact that libel cases are decided in state courts interpreting the law of that state. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law that abridges “the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and the 14th Amendment extends that prohibition to the states.

The Supreme Court, in a 1961 case, laid down a “federal rule” requiring public officials to prove “actual malice” —that a statement was made with “the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” That landmark, 9-0 decision in New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, has been extended in subsequent cases to include “public figures” as well as “public officials.”

While the president’s most prominent libel lawyer, Charles J. Harder, has effectively used privacy laws when suing media companies on behalf of celebrities, including Terry Bollea (a.k.a. Hulk Hogan), it is difficult to see how Trump could successfully assert his right to privacy extends to his actions in office or while campaigning.

Nor does the Supreme Court seem likely to reverse its libel rulings. Congress’ commitment to the First Amendment and that of the Supreme Court seem secure, even with the addition of a new justice to succeed Anthony Kennedy.

Tribune News Service

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments
 
Post a comment
 
Name:
Country:
City:
Email:
Comment:
 
    
    
Related Stories
Shawn Donnan: Trump echoes Ocasio-Cortez’s brand of socialism
On the face of it, self-declared socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Donald Trump have little in common when it comes to economic policy. He’s been cutting taxes. She ..
Gina Coplon-Newfield: Invest in the future, but don’t subsidise the past
People across the United States, from Los Angeles to Des Moines to Orlando, deserve to drive affordable cars that don’t harm the places they love and pollute the air we a..
Eli Stokols and Molly O’Toole: ‘Finish the wall’? Facing failure
For President Donald Trump, chants and signs saying “Build the wall” are so 2016 — “Finish the wall” is his new rallying cry. Yet two years into his term, not one new mil..
Bill Whalen: Is the glowing coverage of Harris ignoring ground reality?
If you’ve already had your fill of a presidential election still 21 months from fruition, here’s some good news: You needn’t worry about the nomination process. It see..
Stephen L Carter: Cost of indifference
In my 30 years of writing about religious freedom, I can’t recall a case as outrageous as the one decided last week by the US Supreme Court. A Muslim inmate on death row ..
FRONTPAGE
 
GALLERY
 
PANORAMA
 
TIME OUT
 
SPORT
 
 
Advertise | Copyright