MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Wants to 'Change Libel Laws' So That Truth Is No Defense

The president thinks incomplete press coverage should be grounds for a lawsuit.

C-SPANC-SPANYesterday on Twitter, President Trump complained about The New York Times (which he had previously identified as an "enemy of the American People") and suggested that its coverage could be improved by making it easier for public figures like him to file successful defamation lawsuits: "The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?" The tweet recalled comments Trump made during his presidential campaign last year, when he said, "I'm going to open up our libel laws" so that "when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post...writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected."

As New York Times legal writer Adam Liptak points out (not for the first time), the president actually has no power to "open up our libel laws," since libel "is a state-law tort, meaning that state courts and state legislatures have defined its contours." Furthermore, the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment limits the ability of politicians and other public figures to recover damages when a journalist makes them look bad: They have to show not only that a reputation-damaging story was false but that the author knew, or at least suspected, it was false. That "actual malice" standard has been the law for more than half a century, since the Court decided New York Times v. Sullivan. "Changing New York Times v. Sullivan would require either the Supreme Court to overrule it or a constitutional amendment," Liptak writes. "Neither is remotely likely."

Yesterday's tweet shows that Trump's misunderstanding of libel law goes beyond his ignorance of how it is made and how it is constrained by the First Amendment. His tweet links to a piece in which New York Post columnist John Crudele criticizes the Times for omitting relevant information from its coverage of Trump's widely derided claim that "President Obama was tapping my phones in October." Crudele notes that the Times reported last January, under the print headline "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides," that "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump." Trump says that article confirms his claim about Obama. It doesn't, as Crudele concedes. But he argues that the story "does make Trump's accusation look a little less crazy" and should have been mentioned in coverage of the controversy about Obama's alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower.

Even if you think Crudele has a point, there is nothing remotely libelous about the articles he is criticizing. They may be incomplete, but they are not defamatory, because they are not false. As evidence of the need to "change libel laws," Trump cites unfavorable press coverage that is accurate but arguably lacks context. Even if New York Times v. Sullivan had never happened, such a complaint would not justify a libel claim, which has to assert that the defendant said something that was verifiably false. Without that threshold requirement, journalism would be financially untenable, because disagreements about its quality would be resolved through litigation instead of criticism and public debate.

Trump does not seem to grasp that journalism can be not just negative but unfair, unbalanced, or misleading without being libelous (which helps explain why he threatens to sue people at the drop of a hat). When he complains that the Times has "gotten me wrong for two solid years," he may mean that the paper underestimated him, that it consistently portrayed him in a negative light, or that he did not recognize himself in its coverage. None of that is grounds for a lawsuit, and anyone who values freedom of speech should be thankful for that fact.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Good thing Trump's not a legislator. He's not the first thin-skinned president, just the most unsubtle.

  • Will4Freedom||

    I applaud you for holding down the "Reason Comment" fort.

    Happy Friday.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Together we can make Hit & Run grate again.

  • some guy||

    He's got a special understanding with the squirrels, so they process his posts first.

  • SIV||

    Trump says that article confirms his claim about Obama. It doesn't

    I like the authoritative citation of a NYTs editorial that cites Politifact and the WaPo's "factchecker".

  • some guy||

    That paragraph is about John Crudele's criticism of the Times. I took that link as being more informative than a citation since the author is claiming Crudele conceded the point anyway.

  • DanO.||

    You're a Republican hack. Few care what you think.

  • DJF||

    """"The New York Times (which he had previously identified as an "enemy of the American People") """

    So Trump is True News

  • Jerryskids||

    Trump's just playing the refs, he's said himself that being a whiny crybaby is just a way to get a little edge in the negotiation game. Sad. Unfair. Pathetic.

  • DanO.||

    Donald J. Trump
    ✔ @realDonaldTrump
    Failing press still picking on me. Can't even grab pussies now. Sad!
    4:26 AM - 31 Mar 2017

  • Memory Hole||

    Flynn doesn't get immunity unless he has information that would incriminate Donald Trump in the Russian conspiracy. That's my guess on it.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Yesterday's tweet shows that Trump's misunderstanding of libel law goes beyond his ignorance of how it is made and how it is constrained by the First Amendment

    No it doesn't. It just shows that he's a lunatic shouting obscenities into the wind.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Trump does not seem to grasp that journalism can be not just negative but unfair, unbalanced, or misleading without being libelous

    We'll add this to the gigantic pile of other things he doesn't grasp.

  • Jgalt1975||

    That's defamatory!

  • Azathoth!!||

    Sad.

    Trump says 'let's make it easier to sue people who can, with a headline, destroy people's lives. when they print lies"

    We've still gotta prove that they're lies.

    We've still gotta prove that there was harm done--just not at the ridiculous level it's at now.

    And Reason sides with the liars.

    No wonder this place reeks of putrescine

  • DanO.||

    Reason sides with the liars.

    Stupid First Amendment!

  • Bee Tagger||

    The "sides with" is a really popular game, lately. ENB got it from the federalist, too.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Part of "Making America Grating Again" is making people love you by being able to squash your enemies with even less effort.

    "They love me because they fear me."

  • Curt||

    "Yesterday's tweet shows that Trump's misunderstanding of libel law goes beyond his ignorance of how it is made and how it is constrained by the First Amendment"

    No... I don't think that's what it shows at all. It shows that he doesn't give a fuck. And he's going to keep on not giving a fuck. Because he (and every other politician) has learned that things like that don't matter. For the most part, they use the principal of "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission."

    The difference between Trump and someone like Obama (and his knowledge of Constitutional Law) is the Obama would spend a bunch of time generating some tortured, bullshit explanation of how his actions were constitutional even when they clearly weren't. Trump simply says: fuck it, I don't care. Then he challenges his opponents to undo his actions. I bet he'll end up with a similar success rate.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Change libel laws?"

    Ok, sure, as long as *we* can sue *politicians* for their incomplete-truths and alternate facts as well. For example, we should be able to sue Senator Feinstein:

    There are many instances of drug dealers altering flavor and packaging of cocaine or methamphetamines to appeal to children.

    — Sen Dianne Feinstein

  • Bee Tagger||

    This is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online