Trump wants to weaken libel laws amid feuds with reporters

First Amendment advocates condemned Trump's suggestions, pointing out that he could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress.

David J. Phillip/AP
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talks with members of the news media after a Republican presidential primary debate at The University of Houston on Thursday.

Feeling maligned by the media, Donald Trump is threatening to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters if he were president and make it easier for him to sue them.

"I love free press. I think it's great," he said Saturday on Fox News Channel, before quickly adding, "We ought to open up the libel laws, and I'm going to do that."

The changes envisioned by the celebrity businessman turned Republican front-runner would mean that "when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," he said at a rally Friday in Fort Worth, Texas.

Mr. Trump added that, should he win the election, news organizations that have criticized him will "have problems." He specifically cited The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Trump last month threatened to sue the Post after the newspaper wrote an article about the bankruptcy of his Atlantic City casino. On Twitter, Trump has routinely criticized reporters who cover him and their news organizations, including The Associated Press.

"The press has to be fair," he said in the broadcast interview.

First Amendment advocates condemned Trump's suggestions.

"His statement shows why we need libel protections," said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "Trump gets offended, he gets upset, and he wants to sue to retaliate. That's not a good reason to sue someone."

Libel law in the United States generally makes it difficult for public figures to sue reporters or other people who criticize them. To win such a case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that factually incorrect statements were made with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.

Trump said he would like to lower that standard. "We're going to have people sue you like you never got sued before," he said.

Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the existing legal standard, Trump could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress, Mr. Leslie said.

"I've never heard of politicians say they would repeal case law established under the First Amendment," he said. "You'd really need a constitutional amendment to do that."

Trump's comments on libel law are not the first time he has disagreed with widely held conceptions of constitutional law. Last year, he said he saw no obstacle to deporting children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States. Courts have regularly found that such children are natural born citizens entitled to the same rights as any other American. Trump has said he does not believe a constitutional amendment would be necessary to get his way.

"You don't have to do a constitutional amendment. You need an act of Congress. I'm telling you – you need an act of Congress," he said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News last year.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.