[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Absent the Sullivan doctrine, I can only imagine what an Obama Administration would have done, or what a Hillary or Sanders Administration might do, to any dissent in the press.

"Loosening up" the libel laws is a knife that cuts both ways, and I suspect we're entering a period of our history when the right to strongly dissent is going to be critical.

So I'm with Sasse on this one.

I would also point out that Trump apparently is opposed to the Citizens United decision. Though the details of that case seem to have been forgotten by many, it was about a non-profit citizens group ("Citizens United") whose movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton was suppressed under the authority of McCain-Feingold as an unlawful expenditure attempting to influence an election.

So between Trump's position on libel laws and his apparent opposition to Citizens United, I think there are legitimate concerns about political free speech if he is elected.

[Defiant]

You may be right in this day and age, where a lawsuit or series of them can tie up a person in court and use up all their money. However, the NY Times and WaPo have sufficient resources to defend themselves, if they print false facts. Opinions are never actionable, so it's only factual assertions, and right now, it's only media empires that are protected, and only against public figures, which we almost always are when attacked by powerful media empires.

How about loser pays? How about expedited trials, or a quick procedure to determine if the claim has merit, and if so, then it proceeds to trial. Most libel cases are pretty cut and dry.

In any event, the notion that the media empires are too protected under current law has been around for decades and is not the sign of a fascist in waiting. You are just looking for justification for your opposition to Trump.