To be honest, Trump hasn’t even said exactly what he wants to do to “liberalize the libel laws” but from a practical point of view it looks like if there was a cause for it, he’s been the object of that cause.
Yes, this could narrow down the 1st Amendment, but on the other hand, if we are really concerned about any Amendment we won’t force it as an excuse to do really antisocial things either. (”Hard cases make bad law.”)
If I was being Machiavellian about this I might push for a law against “Vexatious Libel” in the vein of “Vexatious Litigation.” Kind of RICO-izing libel. Which would be a crimp on the 1st Amendment. But it might be hard to resist doing.
Scalia was using the case as an illustration, and there’s no immediate likelihood that Times v. Sullivan will be overturned. But the justice’s comments serve as a reminder that the protections afforded by that decision are not engraved on a monument — and America’s news media can’t afford to take them for granted.
Neve thought Conservatives were against Judge Scalia?
The standard for a public figure is actual malice. Trump is a public figure. He's no different from any other public figure, he isn't entitled to any special protections, and there are lots of public figures with far more serious complaints than him.
Trump threatened to sue Forbes for honestly evaluating his net worth, which is well below his exaggerated claims. Talk about vexatious litigation.
He's a baby. Like the babies on various college campuses, he thinks that his personal anger "triggers" are worthy of tearing down the free speech rights of other people. They aren't. He needs to develop a thicker skin or get the hell out of the public arena.