Yes, Donald Trump Can Create Problems For Free Speech & The First Amendment
from the pay-attention dept
A few weeks ago, Donald Trump's spokesperson claimed that he had "single-handedly brought back free speech." It was an odd thing to say for a variety of reasons. First, the US has really strong free speech protections and they haven't gone away (even if there are some threats to them). That is, free speech doesn't need to be "brought back" because it's already here. Second, Trump himself, just a few weeks earlier was quoted deliberately mocking free speech, claiming that people who support it are "foolish people." And then, of course, there's the fact that Trump has a very, very long and detailed history of both threatening to sue, and actually suing, over the speech of others. As Walter Olson noted:Donald Trump has been filing and threatening lawsuits to shut up critics and adversaries over the whole course of his career. He dragged reporter Tim O’Brien through years of litigation over a relatively favorable Trump biography that assigned a lower valuation to his net worth than he thought it should have. He sued the Chicago Tribune’s architecture critic over a piece arguing that a planned Trump skyscraper in lower Manhattan would be “one of the silliest things” that could be built in the city. He used the threat of litigation to get an investment firm to fire an analyst who correctly predicted that the Taj Mahal casino would not be a financial success. He sued comedian Bill Maher over a joke.That first case is instructive. I highly recommend reading the details. O'Brien wrote a biography of Trump which was mostly favorable to Trump, but which briefly mentioned that he might only be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than billions, and Trump sued him over that claim. And as that link notes, Trump didn't just lose, he was "humiliated" by the courts. Incredibly, Trump still seems to insist that he "won" the case by basically redefining having the case totally tossed out of the courts as winning:
@julesmattsson Wrong, totally proved my case but didn't get damages because the libel laws in this Country suck!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 24, 2013
Anyway, last Friday Trump made even more news, saying that if he wins he's planning to "open up" libel laws to make it even easier to sue. Given his statement in the Tweet above about how he won... except for what libel laws actually say, it's not surprising that he wants to change such laws.
If I become President, oh, are they going to have problems. They're going to have such problems.That last line is said pointing to the media. Trump followed that up by extolling the virtues of libel law in the UK, which is famous for how horrible they are and how they're abused to silence speech around the globe.
... One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected.
.... So we're going to open up those libel laws, folks, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before...
Well, in England, I can tell you, it's very much different and very much easier. I think it's very unfair when the New York Times can write a story that they know is false, that they virtually told me they know it's false, and I say, why don't you pull the story, and they say, we're not going to do that, because they can't basically be sued. And you can't be sued because can you say anything you want, and that's not fair.Of course, as Politifact noted, Trump is flat out wrong (shocker there) in saying that the NY Times can't be sued if it knowingly publishes a false story. That is, in fact, the standard necessary for defamation in this country.
Many others rushed in to point out something that seemed even more fundamental, which is that libel law is based entirely on state, rather than federal, statutes leading some, like Mathew Ingram at Fortune, to claim that Trump really can't do much to carry out those threats. Indeed, many commentators are treating Trump's confusion over the difference between state and federal laws (and his apparent confusion over key First Amendment precedents that would mean even if it were a federal issue, he couldn't just change the law the way he wanted to) as yet another example of Trump being ridiculously clueless on policy matters he's discussing.
And, of course, it is true that Trump appears to not understand NY Times v. Sullivan, one of the most important cases on the intersection of defamation and the First Amendment, which found that for public figures there is tremendous leeway in allowing speech, such that it is only defamatory if statements are not only false, but made with "actual malice." Trump, obviously, doesn't like this, but seems to think you can just "open up" the law, ignoring that the issue is not the law, but the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and First Amendment precedent.
That said, this is not a situation where you can just wave this off and say, "Oh, clueless Trump, he can't really impact free speech like that." As Marc Randazza explains in a CNN story, Trump can actually still create tremendous damage to the First Amendment if he were to become President. First off, you may have noticed that there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and a Senate insisting it won't look at any nominees until the next President comes into office. If that's the case, then it's entirely possible Trump could appoint someone willing to overturn NYT v. Sullivan. That might be difficult to do with the rest of the court, but it's not impossible.
On top of that, though, there are federal laws related to defamation that Trump could harm. For years we've talked about the importance of anti-SLAPP laws, which allow people sued for defamation, where it's clearly designed to just shut them up, to get those lawsuits tossed quickly and (often) to get their legal fees paid for. People who file SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) hate these laws, and Trump appears to be a serial SLAPP filer. And, as we've been discussing, there's an ongoing push for a federal anti-SLAPP law that may have some real momentum. Yet, if that law actually passes Congress under a President Trump, it seems pretty obvious that it will be vetoed.
So, yes, it's easy to just mock Trump as clueless on this particular subject, and to note that it's not nearly as easy as he seems to think to just "open up" libel laws. But don't be fooled: if he were to become President, rather than "bringing free speech back," he will have plenty of power to create a serious chill on free speech in this country.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, donald trump, federal anti-slapp, first amendment, free speech, libel, slapp, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't matter if it's opinion, or if he really does look like a fd up carrot, he seems to think he should be able to sue and get money for it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, and remove references to carrots from recorded history. Google should be able to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad but true
No, there are plenty already.
What the US needs are wide open primaries whereby the top 2 candidates irregardless of political party go to the general election. I for one am tired of elections that over 50% of the vote goes to losing candidates.
(Yes, I know: a constitutional amendment would be required for Presidential elections. Even without wide open primaries I would favor an amendment to make the Electoral College a tie breaker if a presidential candidate does not receive 50%+ of the vote.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
If Hillary and Donald go head to head in the election, it could be another very close race. Which brings us to a possible outcome of this election:
Imagine a repeat of the 2000 presidential election with Bush v. Gore decided by weeks of recounts and court battles. It was already a circus, but imagine what it would be like if it were Hillary vs. Trump. And imagine that the Supreme Court battle happens in the current environment, with Judge Scalia's death and the fight to replace him. And a Tea Party that didn't exist in 2000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
It might also be nice not to have an electorate that seems to go consistently for either the dumbest and most preposterous or most clearly lying through their teeth candidates available no matter what their political persuasion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
If you say so. I think it's dysfunctional even though my own Government is a corruption mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad but true
This line of false equivalency needs to end. I absolutely HATE Clinton, but comparing the candidates makes the choice between them clear.
1. Hillary: a liberal democrat demagogue with an insane amount of experience, even though she's a proven liar.
2. Trump: a liberal republican demagogue with zero experience, even though he's a proven liar.
So, the only way choosing Trump over Clinton makes sense is if you value the word "republican", which is meaningless in terms of actual policy, more than you value experience on the political stage, or if you actually think that having experience as a politician is a huge negative.
This isn't political; it's essentially a math equation where only one answer makes any fucking sense. I may disagree with those that support other candidates, such as Bernie, Cruz or Rubio. Hell, I may disagree with Clinton supporters depending on whom she's running against. But I will never understand how a liberal New Yorker with zero moral standing, zero experience, and a policy platform that has historically been liberal is somehow convincing republican voters to vote for him. There is simply no rational explanation for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
Just look at terrorism. We've been being told that the brown man is coming to kill us all any second now. Assume you believe that. Don't you think closing the boarders and building walls is a good idea? Trump is the only one saying that. Basically Trump is the Republican party reaping what they have sown. Your lack of understanding comes from being able to think critically and assuming everyone else can.
I still believe Hillary is going to be our next President and because of Manning/Wikileaks, she is going to do everything she can to quash our civil liberties. The fact that the republicans seem to want to nominate someone even worse doesn't really surprise me.
I intend to vote for Bill the Cat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
You're right about the difference between him and Hillary, but for the moderates, it comes down to what you want. Hillary is great at politicking, she has plenty of experience.... So if you hate her agenda, she's a terrible option, because she'll be able to get it through. Trump's an arrogant blowhard that no one likes, so most of his agenda will be hampered out of spite and lack of experience politicking, and that makes his crazy a lot more palatable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
"It may not be possible to do away with government — sometimes I think that government is an inescapable disease of human beings. But it may be possible to keep it small and starved and inoffensive..." R. A. Heinlein
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
Hillary scares the shit out of me, because I know she comes from a long, corrupt political career and has the ability to pull off some seriously backhanded shit at the expense of the country.
At this point, I'd rather vote for a complete moron incapable of arguing his way out of a paper bag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we're purposefully voting the least effective politician into office
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
Trump on the other hand, will be so ineffective that nothing will change (for better or worse) until 4 years go by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
Since he is chosen as a republican, they cannot run the obstructionism they used against Obama and even if they don't generally like him, he may be able to use bipartisanship to get his way through. As for inexperienced: Yes, but with the right people around him to handle those weaknesses he may be very efficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
Where does this idea come from? That Obama has done damage to overall global perception of the US? It seems disconnected from and contrary to easy-to-see evidence and virtually every respectable poll I've seen. And it runs counter to almost every conversation I've had with non-citizens over the last eight years.
After both of Obama's elections people in other countries were literally celebrating in the streets that this was a return to rational foreign policy from the US on the world stage after eight years of Bush. I am by no means saying he has been perfect, or even that his foreign policy has approached the ideal, but he is still quite popular around the world. And positive perception of the US as whole has consistently mirrored that popularity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
What about those eight years of being pretty much universally reviled by every other country while Bush was in office; a leader they fell all over themselves to praise? "Who cares what the world thinks?! AMERICA!!!"
But a mildly progressive centrist democrat who is widely respected by most countries except... Russia? Maybe? "He's tarnishing the US's image!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
Sometimes. Sometimes people are happy for other reasons, too.
"Id rather grudging respect."
You'd rather have grudging respect over what? Actual respect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
We are comparing two spoiled eggs. One has gone bad in the last few weeks and the other is bad for many months now. Sure the first is better but in the end both will either kill you or make you very sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
"
Hillary isn't just a liar. She's a crook, married to an adulterer,who's willful incompetence is responsible for the deaths of our citizens in Benghazi. She belongs in jail.
"2. Trump: a liberal republican demagogue with zero experience, even though he's a proven liar."
Agreed, he is all those things. But the difference is; He truly loves this country, and want's to see it great again.
So your choices are; Career criminal coward who thinks she's above the law... or.... Carrot topped circus clown patriot, who wants to turn the Presidency into a game show.
So much for hope and change!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the US needs more political parties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the US needs more political parties
A solution could be to stop districting - with the added bonus of ending gerrymandering - and use statewide proportionality elections.
As for now, the primaries are a problem since they rely on party funding and they are build around a closed system of voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bingo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New and Improved Libel laws
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
For someone who is running for US President, but has yet to utter an actual, workable policy statement; yet demonstrates that his major (perhaps only) skill is spewing vile insults at others, he should perhaps be careful about opening up libel laws.
I suspect that 'opened up' libel laws work both ways.
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last TRUMP: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. -- 1 Cor 15:52
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever else
That is a plus.
He has also demonstrated some skill in amassing his fortune.
Those who have some personal knowledge of him say that the things he is saying in public are simply designed to attract votes and don't reflect his personal opinions or intentions.
If you think that what he says is stupid/racist/whatever then effectively you are saying that the American public (or at least the segment that votes in republican primaries) is also stupid/racist/whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
Make Donald drumpf again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
I honestly can't decide how to respond to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
True but quite a few in his position seem to be unable to avoid losing it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whatever else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
That makes him different than all the other candidates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
No - obviously not in that respect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
His fortune started with an inheritance. It's difficult to say if he would have gotten anywhere had he started out as a middle class worker with no startup capital from Klansman daddy.
If you think that what he says is stupid/racist/whatever then effectively you are saying that the American public (or at least the segment that votes in republican primaries) is also stupid/racist/whatever.
I would definitely say that. It's true. I'm related to some of those people. They never left the south. They never traveled anywhere except Iraq or Afghanistan and those experiences didn't broaden their minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
Yes I'm aware of that- but his fortune is at least larger now than the one he started with - wich not everyone can say!
As a bystander to this election from the UK I can say that none of the candidates is flawless from my point of view. Within the democrat camp I prefer Sanders to Clinton but I can see major flaws in both. As usual I have major objections to all the republicans and Trump is the only one who has any redeeming features (the relative immunity from lobbyists and the fact that he isn't really a republican - he is a Liberal in the 19th century Brtish sense of the word). However just about any democrat candidate from the pre-Clinton past - and several republicans from that era would be preferable to any of the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
You do not get rich by spending your own money, but by spending other peoples money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
You do not get rich by spending your own money, but by Obtaining other peoples money.(fixed that for ya)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
Right. And here is how he has amassed it:
1. Get investors to put money into some thing he is ostensibly creating
2. Declare bankruptcy and/or take government bailouts
3. Take all of his investors' money
http://www.alternet.org/story/156234/exposing_how_donald_trump_really_made_his_fortune%3A_inher itance_from_dad_and_the_government%27s_protection_mostly_did_the_trick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
OK so he was a successful bastard!
That is stil (in some sense) better than being an unsuccessful bastard.
According to Brian Clough (apparently) Don Revie's Leeds side didn't win their trophies "fairly" - but then again plenty of other sides have not played fairly - but still never won anything!
When Trump said that he preferred soldiers who didn't get captured (talking about John McCain) my response was that I preferred business men who didn't go bankrupt - so I am not exactly on his side - except in the following sense:
He is a maverick who doesn't have any debts to any third party (at least none that he has any intention of repaying). If he became president he would leave no dynasty behind him to carry on afterwards. He would also have almost zero support from any part of congress so would have difficulty doing much damage. The alternative of a more mainstream republican who could enact a rightwing agenda WITH the support of congress is frankly too terrifying to contemplate.
The remainder of the republican
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whatever else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
Apparently he has still use for other people's money, or why has he two donate buttons on his page?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
He didn't get rich by passing over any opportunity to collect a bit more cash.
Anything donated doesn't have to come from his own bank account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
Duh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
Perhaps, but irrelevant. His person interests already align with the interests of the biggest pools of lobbying dollars.
"He has also demonstrated some skill in amassing his fortune."
No, he has not. His wealth is not something he earned.
"Those who have some personal knowledge of him say that the things he is saying in public are simply designed to attract votes and don't reflect his personal opinions or intentions."
And this hits the head of my biggest problem with Trump: he is a bald-faced, transparent, unapologetic liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/705171149022433280
Yes, I'm Godwinning this. Because sometimes it's not wrong.
(And yes, the article is real. Full article available at http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1922/11/21/98786796.html?pageNumber=18 .)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever else
You're assuming being rich means not being greedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever else
Trump is like old age, pretty crap but then consider the (republican) alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get Out While You Can
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get Out While You Can
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donald Trump and the Central Park Five
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/feb/17/donald-trump-central-park-five-jogger-death-pen alty-new-york-video
http://thegrio.com/2013/04/23/donald-trump-tweets-then-deletes-what-were-central-park-five-doing-in- the-park/
As president, Trump would enjoy legal immunity from libel suits directed at his governmental speech, regardless of its falsity, but could still sue people as an individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just gut the whole first amendment
1) Freedom of speech: sue for libel.
2) Freedom of religion: not if you're one of those "brown person" religions, including Sikh or Buddism, which kind-of looks like Islam.
3) Freedom of the press: watch how much freedom the press gets once there's not as much freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
imo, the gop is out of touch with the times. if reagan came back today, he'd have a retched blond comb-over.
as for us, the frankenstein political process we have hand-built to not serve the nation has begun to move.
it's alive. it's a-liiiiive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JRN 101 Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]