I was disappointed Trump met with the NY Times, especially the silver spooner Sulzberger. They’ve been absolutely blackguarding him.
I’m reading Scalia Speaks, a collection of Scalia’s speeches edited by one of his sons (along with a former Scalia clerk). It was interesting to me that in at least one of his speeches, Scalia asserted that “the freedom of speech” (emphasis on the) meant (and therefore, rightfully, means) not absolute freedom of speech but freedom of speech as understood at law at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment.Hence laws against libel, or fighting words, or pornography - or falsely calling “‘Fire!' in a crowded theater” - are not problematic at all but restrict things which would have been illegal before, and immediately after, the passage of the First Amendment. And, per Scalia, that means that the courts are wrong to give near absolute immunity to abusively hurtful speakers against political figures.