Trump Wants Changes to Federal Libel Laws. No Such Laws Exist

[MineralMan]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/freedom-press/trump-once-again-threatens-change-federal-libel-laws-dont-exist

Trump Once Again Threatens to Change Federal Libel Laws That Don’t Exist
In the latest in a long line of attacks on freedom of the press, President Trump has once again threatened today to change libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations, publishers, and others after the publication of an unflattering book.

“We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,” Trump said.

Fortunately, there are two strong obstacles standing in his way. Chief among them is the First Amendment, which clearly protects freedom of the press. But the other main barrier is the inconvenient fact that there is no federal libel law for President Trump to bully Congress to change. Libel cases are based on state laws, which neither the president nor Congress has control over because of our nation’s federalist system.

Once again, Donald J. Trump demonstrates that he has little to no knowledge of our nation.

[malaise]

1. Even Turley was mocking him this morning

on Morning JoeScum

[MineralMan]

2. Mocking Donald Trump Is a Growth Industry

it seems.

[unblock]

3. does that mean i can legally libel someone as long as i'm in washington d.c. or a federal park?

though i suppose if i broadcast from washington d.c., then as soon as the signal reaches an audience in a state, that state's libel laws could apply....


but in washington d.c., could legally circulate a pamphlet saying "robb is a dingbat" and be safe from lawsuit?

[MineralMan]

5. IANAL. So, I don't know the answer to that interesting question.

[onenote]

7. DC has a defamation law.

https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/31-2231.05.html

While DC is ultimately subject to Federal control, Congress has conferred a limited amount of home rule on the District, which has a city council that can and does enact laws similar to those in the 50 states.

[unblock]

9. thanks, makes sense. that still leaves the question open for yellowstone park ;)

[fescuerescue]

14. I bet if you were between 3 and 24 miles offshore you could do it

That's outside of state jurisdiction and still inside of Federal.

There used to be a Casino boat that would pick you up in florida, and hang out about 3 miles offshore and run the games there. Outside of Florida and at that time, and no Federal law against gambling

I did that once. Sucked big time. Poor games and you were captive till the next shuttle.

[unblock]

16. i won't bother. people know robb is a dingbat, they don't need a pamphlet from me to tell that ;)

[Jim Lane]

12. Generally, federal enclaves incorporate state law

I've never happened to have such a case in defamation. I did represent a worker who suffered an on-the-job injury while working (as a contractor's employee) in a construction project at the U. S. Military Academy, i.e. West Point. In the area of personal injury, there's a federal statute incorporating state law. Therefore, we were able to rely on the protective provisions of the New York Labor Law.

My guess is that defamation would be treated similarly.

[Takket]

4. He can't complain about making stuff up to hurt people

Since it was his entire election strategy AND the self admitted faux news business model

[MineralMan]

6. Yah, well, there's no law against hypocrisy, either.

In fact, I believe hypocrisy is required of all Republican politicians.

[FakeNoose]

22. That reminds me ;-)

Thanks for the perfect opportunity to use this.

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

8. Complete dumb ass

`

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Trump, being an ignorant moron, has no clue about defamation law.

For starters, as the OP notes, there is no federal defamation law. For the most part defamation is determined by the common law of each state (common law being court-made law, not statutory law created by legislatures). With a few very narrow exceptions there is no federal common law. In other words, court decisions in each state determine what is and is not defamatory. Most courts base their decisions on a long tradition of court decisions originating in 18th-century England, but modified over time.

Second, the U.S. Constitution determines the limits of defamation claims; the First Amendment is controlling over any state court decision or state statute. This is probably what is really bothering Trump: the fact that the First Amendment, as interpreted by Supreme Court decisions like Near v. Minnesota, New York Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., makes it more difficult to sue for defamation under certain circumstances. Near says prior restraint (preventing publication before it happens) is unconstitutional; NYT v. Sullivan says public figures have to prove actual malice (that the statement was known to be false or was made in reckless disregard of the truth); and Gertz says strict liability for defamation is unconstitutional. This case law is what apparently bugs Trump the most, but even the most conservative justices, including Scalia, have been very protective of the First Amendment. Trump can't count on Gorsuch to help him.

Finally, existing law does not protect the intentional publication of false statements, nor does the First Amendment. If a newspaper prints a defamatory statement that it knows to be false, it can be sued, even if the defamed person is a public figure. If the Washington Post printed a story claiming that Trump has sex with goats in the Oval Office while knowing that he doesn't, Trump could successfully sue them (unless, of course, the Post could prove that he actually does have sex with goats in the Oval Office). What Trump hates is criticism, including (or perhaps especially) criticism based on truth. And if somehow the law were to change to make it easier to sue for defamation, Trump himself would be the biggest target.

Be careful what you wish for, Don.

[MineralMan]

11. He has already forgotten what he said, anyhow.

[Jim Lane]

13. If the Post published a story that Trump had sex with goats in the Oval Office...

The real problem with our defamation laws is that, given the speciesist bias of our legal system, the goats wouldn't be allowed to sue for libel.

[WyattKansas]

15. He is only attacking a myth to get people pissed at straw man.

People shouldn't be worried about what he says... It's what he, his cabinet, and congressional republicans are doing behind the scenes that is destroying this country.

If everyone thought Bush & Republicans, Inc. was bad, then wait until Trump & Republican, Inc. turns out... 10 times worse.

[NCTraveler]

17. It's another display of big government conservatism.

These people are all about big and punitive government.

[Ken Burch]

18. Ok, then...Dems should say they'll accept ALL T___p's proposed amendments

To the U.S. Libel Code.

[MineralMan]

19. It doesn't matter, does it?

Federal laws have many, many gaps that are left for the states to decide. That's the nature of our republic. Of course, Trump doesn't understand that, or probably even know that.

[Ken Burch]

20. You missed the joke.

I was saying we should his amendments to an imaginary law.

And any he might offer to the Mandatory Anthem Deference Maintenance Applied Nationally act as well.

And the Fully Authorized Compulsory Enforcement of Properly Understood Neutralization of Criminal Haters law.

(on the last two, read the acronyms)

[MineralMan]

21. No, I didn't miss the joke.

I chose to riff off the content of your post.