Commentary: Libel laws exist to protect speech and press freedoms

Hearing President Donald Trump talk about wanting to change libel laws in the United States reminds me of the saying I, and probably most young kids, are told while growing up: If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.

When Trump tweets or speaks from a podium about how libel laws are not strong enough, it is almost always after a story has been published that was critical of him.

Take the story published by The New York Times about sexual misconduct accusations against the then-presidential candidate. After the story went live, candidate Trump called it libelous and said U.S. libel laws should be changed to give public figures, like himself, a chance at winning libel lawsuits.

A couple of months later, in March of last year, Trump brings up the idea of changing libel laws again. It once again comes after The New York Times publishes a story critical of him.

“Change libel laws?” he asked in a tweet.

Most recently, Trump discussed opening up libel laws after the release of Michael Wolff’s book “Fire and Fury.” He called current libel laws a “sham” and a “disgrace.”

It seems, if Trump had his way, a change in libel laws would look like this: if you don’t have anything nice to say about the president, his administration or his companies, you won’t be publishing anything at all.

The problem is, that’s censorship. More important, that is not what this country was founded on.

Instead, our laws that protect free speech and a free press do the opposite. They allow for opinions to be shared, for criticism of the government and questioning of public leaders, including the president of the United States.

In the United States libel laws are state-based, not federal (so Trump could not amend libel law because there is not a federal statute governing libel). It was a Supreme Court ruling (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan) that set the standard for what is considered libelous. That standard, the actual malice standard, exists today and requires public officials to prove the publisher of information knew a statement was false when publishing it and acted in reckless disregard of the truth.

It is a high bar but for good reason. It’s because of this standard that the public doesn’t have to worry that a public official will be able to silence critical news stories or opinions just because they do not like it or it hurts their feelings.

Public officials have to prove that the information is false, not unflattering and that the person publishing knew it was false and published it anyway.

What’s important to point out is this standard applies to public officials. There is another standard, the negligence standard, which anyone can sue under for false statements. But, with public officials, the actual malice standard is applied to balance the importance of free speech against false statements.

Libel laws protect free speech and a free press. Without them, stories (including online) and opinions (including on social media) could be censored or removed, simply because someone’s feelings are hurt.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: Get me back my turkey

Many years ago, the Israeli Bedouin expert Clinton Bailey told me a story about a Bedouin chief who discovered one day that his favorite turkey had been stolen. He called his sons together and told them: “Boys, we are in great danger now. My turkey’s been stolen. Find my turkey.” His boys just laughed and said, “Father, what...
Opinion: A parable of self-destruction

EASTER ISLAND — This remote speck in the South Pacific is famous for its colossal stone statues, nearly 1,000 of them towering over the landscape like guardians. Who built them? How did they get there? And who fitted some of them with giant red stone hats weighing up to 12 tons each? When I was a kid, a huge nonfiction best seller by Erich von...
Opinion: Women promise to storm the swamp

How many times have we heard that this is the year of the woman? Let’s just say, several. Each decade for the past century or so seems to have presented a fresh feature to justify yet another proclamation of historic import. From suffrage (1920) to the pill (1960) and to legalized abortion (1973) to Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine (1972) to &ldquo...
Editorial: Despite new law, Florida needs bigger commitment on opioids
Editorial: Despite new law, Florida needs bigger commitment on opioids

With plenty of pomp, Gov. Rick Scott came to Boca Raton on Monday to ceremoniously sign a high-profile bill designed to prevent Floridians from getting hooked on opioids. If only this new law were anywhere near as powerful as the addictions it hopes to combat. Although the governor last year declared a public health emergency, the reality is that he...
Letters: Jupiter, developer insult our intelligence

Jupiter, developer insult our intelligence Thousands of residences have been built in Jupiter over the past two decades, and not once can I remember the subject of “cheaper” new construction being addressed. I refrain from the overused terminology of “affordable” housing since all homes built are affordable to someone &mdash...
More Stories