PRESIDENT TRUMP DOSEN'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST ADMENDMENT

Per Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury” book, Trump was bored when learning the US Constitution

 

Trump's statements go against the basic principles of the First Amendment.

 

As it always is in the Trump administration, they are once again doing unprecedented actions for that of a democratic US executive administration.  Trump has now stated he wants to challenge the First Amendment rights by trying to stop the publication of a book.  “It is unthinkably difficult to imagine a president suppressing publication of a book criticizing him,” said Floyd Abrams, a noted First Amendment lawyer. 

 

The book in question is of course, the latest book by Michael Wolff titled, FIRE AND FURY.  A book written by an individual that was allowed to conduct over 200 interviews inside the White House.  The Trump lawyer, Charles J. Harder of Beverly Hills, CA, has sent an 11-page letter to the publisher of the author’s new book about the goings on inside the Trump White House, saying it included false and libelous statements that could result in “substantial monetary dam­ages and punitive damages.”

 

“Mr. Trump hereby demands that you immediately cease and desist from any further publication, release or dissemination of the book, the article, or any excerpts or summaries of either of them, to any person or entity, and that you issue a full and complete retraction and apology to my client as to all statements made about him in the book and article that lack competent evidentiary support,” the letter said.

 

This of course, just caused the publisher to move the publication date from mid-January to the 5^th of January.  They then sent 75 copies of the book to all the book stores and those copies sold out almost immediately.  In addition, the book was #1 in sales on Amazon for selling the digital tablet edition of the book. (The profit on this book will be amazing for the author as the digital version is only $5.00 less than the hard-cover edition.)

 

The lawyer's letter was sent to both  Wolff and Steve Rubin, president and publisher of Henry Holt & Co. That publishing company issued a statement confirming that it had received the letter but, of course, would proceed with the publication: “We see ‘Fire and Fury’ as an extraordinary contribution to our national discourse.”

 

Various news organizations had received pre-publication copies, including The Washington Post, which said the book depicted Trump as “presiding over a chaotic White House, struggling to settle into his new reality and eagerly trying to maintain his normal golf habits.”

 

As it turns out, the attorney Harder is an experienced libel lawyer who has represented Melania Trump and, briefly, Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, among others. Harder also successfully represented wrestler Hulk Hogan in an ­invasion-of-privacy case against Gawker Media, which resulted in the closing of that website.

 

Some people have disputed Wolff’s descriptions of scenes in which they are mentioned in the book, and the White House has unleashed an escalating string of insults to denounce Wolff and his reporting.

 

However, it is exceedingly difficult for any public official to prove libel, because it requires a plaintiff to show that a writer knew the disputed statement was false but printed it anyway.  Or that they acted with “reckless disregard.” That requires proof that the writer seriously doubted the truth of what he wrote, and that is very difficult to prove.

 

The problem for the Trump White House is the following: “The demand for proof of reckless disregard is at its zenith when it comes to the president and the White House,” said Ronald K.L. Collins, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Washington School of Law.  Collins said the demand that Holt cease publication of the book, which is on its way to being a bestseller, did not seem serious. “The cinematic world has come to the real world,” he said.  Here he was referring to the current movie “The Post,” which concerns the attempts to halt the New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a history of the US government’s efforts in Vietnam.

 

The difference here, of course, is that it was the government trying to stop the Pentagon Papers publication.  But the Supreme Court eventually ruled that the papers were free to publish their reports.

 

In this case, it is a private lawyer trying to convince a company not to publish a book about the president and his administration.

 

In cases concerning libel and defamation, it is up to the publication to decide whether to publish, and the offended subject can then sue for damages.  But the First Amendment scholar Collins, wondered what those damages would be in Trump’s case?  “This is a president who revels in bad press,” he said. “In a sense, bad press is his best publicity.”

 

Sonja R. West, another First Amendment expert at the University of Georgia School of Law, has expressed concern about the most powerful politician in the world threatening the publication of a book that criticized his performance, rather than simply defending himself against the depiction.  “It is yet another norm he seems to be violating,” she said. “Really, it goes against the underlying basic principles of the First Amendment.”

 

In other words, this book is still going to be available to everyone.  I personally have already downloaded it to my Kindle Fire tablet.

 

Copyright G.Ater  2018