Book Banning Bunkum Trump’s feckless bluster isn’t a threat to the First Amendment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/book-banning-bunkum-1515361290
One reason many Americans don’t trust the media is because they treat every Donald Trump outburst as a Defcon 1 level threat to the survival of the republic. The latest example is the panic over Mr. Trump’s legal threat to the publisher of Michael Wolff’s book and his lament that libel laws are too weak.
Mr. Trump had his lawyer send a letter on Thursday to Henry Holt demanding that it “cease and desist” publication of Mr. Wolff’s book. This is a longstanding Trump tactic designed to underscore his claims that a book or article is false. Invariably the threat vanishes as the controversy does.
Mr. Trump tried this with us when we criticized one of his debate performances during the presidential campaign. His lawyer sent a letter threatening the Journal and the editor of these columns, in his personal and professional capacity, with a defamation suit if we didn’t apologize and retract the editorial. We ignored the letter, repeated the criticism, and Mr. Trump dropped the subject.
Mr. Wolff’s book may be partly imagined, as his work often is, but that is no reason to block publication. Unless an author has violated national security, or some contractual agreement with an agency like the CIA, no court is going to ban a book in advance of publication. The Supreme Court declared such “prior restraint” on free speech unconstitutional in the landmark Near v. Minnesota case in 1931. Henry Holt knows this and responded to Mr. Trump’s letter by moving up the publication date.
Mr. Trump’s libel lament is also familiar and feckless bluster. “Libel laws are very weak in this country. If they were strong it would be very helpful,” Mr. Trump said on Saturday at a press event, joining the queue of politicians who wish they could sue journalists.
In February 2016 as a candidate, Mr. Trump declared: “One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” The difference now is that he’s not even claiming he can change the libel laws; he’s merely griping about them.
Our media friends won’t admit this, but Hillary Clinton posed a far more dangerous threat to free speech when she made rewriting the First Amendment part of her 2016 platform. Like most Democrats, Mrs. Clinton wants a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision on campaign contributions and free speech.
Readers may recall that Citizens United involved an attempt to bar the broadcast of an anti-Hillary movie. During oral arguments Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart admitted that under the law at the time the government could ban the publication of a book critical of a candidate. “We could prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds,” Mr. Stewart said. Citizens United ruled otherwise, but Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to overturn it poses a far more tangible threat than Mr. Trump’s cease-and-desist letter.
All the more so because a Democratic Congress would likely try to rewrite the First Amendment, and states run by Democrats would ratify it. Republicans have shown little interest in changing state libel laws. When Mr. Trump poses a real threat to press freedom, we’ll let you know. And we won’t cry wolf.
Comments are closed.
