Why the media doesn’t fear defaming Donald Trump



Have you ever wondered why reporters don’t seem to hesitate to say and repeat things about Donald Trump that simply aren’t true — as if they have no fear of defamation liability?

This sort of thing happens because the U.S. Supreme Court about 60 years ago invented a First Amendment doctrine that protects the media from defamation liability, at least in lawsuits brought by public figures.

The 'actual malice' standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don't. Not by a mile.

If you’re wondering which words in the First Amendment tell reporters they are free to defame activists, politicians, and other public figures without fear of being sued, you’re on the right track. Nothing in the text, structure, or original public understanding of the First Amendment talks about or even leads logically to an absurd rule insulating the media from defamation liability.

The fact that the Constitution doesn’t support this rule didn’t stop the Supreme Court from deciding in a 1964 case called New York Times v. Sullivan that a defamation action brought by a public figure cannot succeed unless the defendant acted with “actual malice.”

The Supreme Court defined “actual malice” to mean knowledge of the offending statement’s falsity or reckless disregard as to its truthfulness. For obvious reasons, the news media industry loves Sullivan, as it gives reporters and media companies almost a complete pass when it comes to defaming public figures.

But the fact that media companies love the Sullivan case doesn’t change the fact that the Supreme Court invented this doctrine out of thin air.

Even if one thinks immunizing media companies against defamation liability might be a good idea for policy reasons, that doesn’t change the fact that it finds no support in the Constitution. As a practical matter, moreover, it’s become apparent that New York Times v. Sullivan disproportionately — indeed, overwhelmingly — helps Democrats and creates a severe disadvantage for Republicans in the political process.

Think about it: The media are all but immune from defamation liability when speaking about public figures, including politicians, so, given that the media are almost seamlessly aligned with Democrats, they can hit Republicans more or less all they want without fear.

And they do!

In essence, all the media must do to avoid liability when attacking Donald Trump and other Republican politicians is have some thin, arguable basis to show that when they defamed a Republican, they didn’t know they were speaking falsely.

That means they can be negligent when speaking falsely about Republican politicians like Trump.

Of course, reporters will insist “that’s not fair to say New York Times v. Sullivan allows us to single out Republicans. After all, the same standard applies regardless of a politician’s party affiliation.” But that overlooks the overwhelming, increasingly obvious bias within the news industry in America.

So yes, the “actual malice” standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don't. Not by a mile.

Thus, not only is the Sullivan decision wrong because it isn’t rooted in the Constitution (but claims to be), but it also leaves countless victims of defamation without recourse, encourages lazy journalism, and provides a huge, unfair advantage to Democrats in politics.

Some jurists and legal scholars have noted that it may be time for the Supreme Court to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan and that litigants facing this standard should begin making arguments for overturning that unfortunate precedent.

In any event, it’s wrong for Democrats to enjoy an unfair advantage arising out of a fake constitutional doctrine created out of thin air by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Editor’s note: This article has been adapted from a thread that appeared on X (formerly Twitter).

Catholic student paper sued by Notre Dame professor over coverage of her abortion activism. Now she's suing, but they 'will not be silenced.'



A conservative-leaning student paper at the University of Notre Dame is facing a defamation lawsuit from a liberal professor who claims the paper's coverage of her pro-abortion activism was in bad faith and resulted in her harassment.

The Irish Rover is not backing down. Rather, the paper maintains its reports were true, and motivated by this apparent effort to shut them up, the student journalists emphasized Monday that "We Will Not Be Silenced" and are filing an Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the suit.

The Catholic university's tenured pro-abortion activist

Tamara Kay is a tenured professor of global affairs and sociology at Notre Dame. This University of California, Berkeley, alum is a committed pro-abortion activist whose writing on the subject has appeared in various liberal blogs and papers.

In March, she co-authored a piece claiming prohibitions on the abortion pill mifepristone "would be a terrible policy choice and violate human rights."

The article, which referred to expectant mothers as "pregnant people," called the abortion pill "the gold standard of treatment" and "safer than taking Tylenol."

In June 2022, Kay co-authored a piece claiming "women's lives are literally at stake" in the wake of the Dobbs ruling, adding that American activists should follow the lead of radicals in Latin America and Ireland whose "targeted and strategic activism that disrupts daily life for many" has helped "force legislators to protect the right to abortion for all."

In December 2022, she co-authored a piece denouncing efforts to "erode access to abortion" and claiming that abortion bans do not prevent abortion — a claim Texas has demonstrated to be false.

In the same counterfactual piece, Kay also dehumanized the unborn in two instances: first, claiming that the child in the womb is not a baby during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy; and second, claiming abortion is not dangerous, discounting its lethality to the unborn.

The professor further stressed in a recent screed for Salon that "abortion access is freedom-enhancing, in the truest sense of the word," adding that it is "consistent with integral human development that emphasizes social justice and human dignity."

Kay's views on abortion may be not be exceptional among the faculty at the pro-life Catholic university, though alum have strongly criticized her stances. Her views are, however, at odds with the teaching of the Catholic Church, which unequivocally states that abortion is evil and "gravely contrary to the moral law."

As a result of the disconnect between her purported religiosity and her activism, faithful adherents to the church's teaching at the university have taken interest, particularly student journalists at the Irish Rover.

The Irish Rover's coverage

The Irish Rover published two articles that got Kay's dander up: an October 2022 piece by W. Joseph DeReuil, the former editor in chief of the student paper, and a March 2023 piece by Luke Thompson, the politics editor of the Rover, reported the Daily Signal.

In his Oct. 12 piece, DeReuil detailed Kay's remarks at a Sept. 21, 2022, panel entitled, "Post-Roe America: Making Intersectional Feminist Sense of Abortion Bans."

"Kay used this panel as a platform to explain why she thought abortion bans are ineffective and immoral, complementing her work to bring abortion to Notre Dame students," wrote DeReuil. "Her initiatives began after Indiana S.B.1—a law that banned abortion statewide—took effect September 15. She has continued since the law was suspended via injunction by a state judge while litigation takes place"

The article included a photograph of Kay's office door, which had an LGBT activist "ally" sticker along with a sign that read, "This is a SAFE SPACE to get help and information on ALL Healthcare issues and access - confidentially and with care & compassion," with the letter "J" in bold and encircled.

DeReuil indicated that the encircled "J" "denotes Notre Dame professors who are willing to help students access abortion," adding that Kay had posted online, "We are here (as private citizens, not representatives of ND) to help you access healthcare when you need it, and we are prepared in every way. Look for the 'J', Spread the word to students!"

This support allegedly took the form of offers to help students obtain abortion pills and Plan B pills.

The National Catholic Register reported that in a Sept. 16, 2022, tweet on her now-deleted account, Kay wrote, "Will help as a private citizen if you have issues w access or cost. DM me."

DeReuil claimed that Kay retweeted posts from "Abortion Finder" and "Catholics For Choice" from the same social media account, detailing ways "on how to reimburse costs for traveling out of state to obtain an abortion and how to get abortion pills by mail."

Kay reportedly told the Rover she was "not actively" promoting abortion, but then conceded, "I am doing that as a private citizen, so that's been cleared by the university."

The article further noted that Kay claimed indicated her view on abortion "runs afoul of Church teaching, but in other areas, my positions are perfectly aligned [with the Church]."

Thompson's March 22 article referenced a number of the claims made in DeReuil's article and discussed Kay's pro-abortion remarks at a March 7 College Democrats event concerning "women's rights issues."

The lawsuit

According to the Rover, Kay's lawyer wrote DeReuil in early April, notifying him of her intent to sue for defamation and demanding that the paper retract the two articles so as to "mitigate damages that may be awarded or recovered in the case."

"An apologize [sic] should also be offered to Dr. Tamara Kay," said the letter.

After raising over $12,000 for legal assistance to sue the student paper via a GoFundMe campaign, Kay ultimately filed her lawsuit on May 22, alleging the articles penned by DeReuil and Thompson contained false and defamatory information.

The complaint confirmed that the photograph in DeReuil's article was in fact one of Kay's door but suggested that the message thereon was not, contrary to the former editor's suggestion, an offer to "procure abortion pills."

Kay's suit also suggested that the article falsely stated that a student asked the professor about how she squares her support of abortion with the university's commitment to upholding the "sanctity of human life from conception to natural death," suggesting that no such exchange occurred, and further alleged the Rover's report "contains numerous other inaccuracies and false statements."

As a consequence of the Rover's reports, the suit claims Kay has "been harassed, threatened, and experience damage to her residential property" extra to suffering "mentally and emotionally."

The fighting Irish

DeReuil told the Daily Signal that everything the paper published was and is true: "I know that everything we published is true and written in good faith, so I firmly believe that the lawsuit can only be decided in favor of The Irish Rover."

"Through all of complaints professor Kay has offered against the Rover, and even in the law suit itself, it has remained unclear to me what she is objecting to in my presentation of the facts of her abortion advocacy," said DeReuil. "The Rover’s reporting simply brought these facts to the attention of the pro-life parts of the Notre Dame community."

DeReuil told the Daily Caller the Irish Rover is filing an anti-[strategic lawsuits against public participation] motion to dismiss the suit "because we believe that there is no merit to any of Professor Kay’s claims, so we hope to put this lawsuit behind us as quickly as possible in order to reestablish our focus on promoting Notre Dame’s Catholic identity."

In a defiant op-ed Monday, the Rover stated, "Professor Kay’s allegations against the Rover are entirely false. ... And her lawsuit reflects only the latest stage in a tenured professor's baseless public campaign against undergraduates at her own university who had the temerity to publish accurate stories about her very public abortion advocacy."

The paper indicated that despite Kay's claims that she was not interviewed by the Rover, it has a recording of a conversation with the professor, wherein the former editor introduces himself as "Joe DeReuil, the editor of the Irish Rover," before asking questions.

Kay previously admitted to the leftist publication the Cut that she had in fact fielded questions from DeReuil, but cited her pro-abortion activist co-author Susan Ostermann, then present, as a witness to seeing no recording device or notation.

Grayson Quay, editor of the Daily Caller, noted that Kay can "clearly be heard making" statements she now denies having made on tape and that her "lawsuit is dead on arrival. No idea what she was thinking."

Eric Kniffin, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote, "This is a prime example of why we have anti-SLAPP laws. Shame on this @NotreDame prof for threatening students for accurately reporting on her pro-abortion advocacy."

The Rover concluded its defiant article, "The Rover will not apologize for just and truthful reporting that helps Our Lady’s University stay true to its Catholic mission."

The Daily Signal noted that neither Kay nor Notre Dame had responded to requests for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump's defamation battle: Former president sues E Jean Carroll over rape allegations



Writer E. Jean Carroll accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in 1996 and then sued Trump for defamation when he denied the allegations.

A jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll but claimed he was not liable for rape. Carroll refused to abide by the ruling and went on CNN to claim that the former president raped her.

Now, Trump’s turned the tables back on her and is suing for defamation.

In an older clip of Trump speaking at a CNN town hall, Trump continued to claim that she was lying.

He then said, “I had a picture taken years ago with her and her husband. Nice guy, John Johnson, he was a newscaster, a very nice man. She called him an ‘ape' — happens to be African-American, called him an ‘ape.’ The judge wouldn’t allow us to put that in.”

But Trump didn’t stop there.

According to the former president, Carroll’s dog or cat was named “vagina.”

“The judge wouldn’t allow us to put that in,” Trump said again.

Sara Gonzales watches the clip and bursts out laughing, commenting, “That's my favorite Trump quote ever.”

Stu Burguiere finds it all bizarre.

“It’s so long ago, these cases cannot be adjudicated this much. You can’t have a multiple decade separation between an incident and a discussion and a trial and all this. It’s just ridiculous.”

Jason Buttrill agrees and believes that Trump absolutely has a right to sue Carroll.

“I don’t think after the courts made a decision you can just go on cable news and then say, ‘This man is a rapist.’ I think he might have some, you know, grounds for, you know, saying that this is defamation.”


Want more from 'The News & Why It Matters'?

To enjoy more roundtable rundowns of the top stories of the day, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Dominion Voting Systems will not seek settlement in defamation suits against Lindell, Giuliani, and Powell



Dominion Voting Systems will not seek a settlement in its $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit against prominent Trump supporters including MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, and lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

In a court filing Monday, the company said there is no "realistic possibility" of a settlement in its cases against the prominent Trump supporters, each of whom claimed Dominion was part of a "national conspiracy" of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

"Given the devastating harm to Plaintiffs, the lack of remorse shown by Defendants, and the fact that many of them continue to double down on their lies, Plaintiffs do not believe any realistic possibility of settlement exists," the company's lawyers wrote in the documents, which were first reported by Business Insider.

The papers were jointly filed with lawyers for the defendants in a case that will be presided over by U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols. The judge allowed Dominion's defamation lawsuits to proceed in August after dismissing an attempt by Powell, Giuliani, and Lindell to have the cases dismissed. Nichols also consolidated the cases so that they would be heard together.

Lawyers for defendants Powell and Giuliani argued in the filings that their claims about Dominion's voting machines did not meet the legal standard for defamation.

"Powell and Giuliani are open to settlement discussions once discovery is complete and Dominion realizes that its claims are without merit and that it has no damages legally attributable to Powell and Giuliani," the filing said. "Powell and Giuliani have nothing to show remorse for and dispute that they have lied about anything."

Attorneys for Powell and Giuliani said they will participate in the discovery process for the lawsuit. However, Business Insider reported Giuliani's lawyers said he is currently unable to turn over documents because the FBI took possession of his digital files when it raided his home in May as part of an investigation into whether he violated lobbying laws.

Lindell said he will not participate in the discovery process. He informed Insider that he intends to appeal Nichols' denial of his motion to dismiss the defamation suit all the way to the Supreme Court.

He also said he will "never settle" with Dominion and has filed a counter lawsuit for $1.6 billion against the voting machine manufacturer, Business Insider reported.

"They are prison bound! They are trying to cover up their crimes and committing more crimes in the process!"Lindell said, informing the outlet "many new charges and lawsuits" will be brought against Dominion in the "next two to three weeks."

Dominion has vigorously denied the claims made by Lindell, Powell, and Giuliani, including the allegation that Dominion machines used software manufactured in Venezuela to help Hugo Chavez fraudulently win elections, among other unproven accusations. Dominion is an American company based in Denver and Toronto and has no ownership ties to the government of Venezuela.

The company alleges that Lindell, a self-made millionaire and staunch Trump supporter, advanced false and defamatory claims about Dominion's voting machines in order to "sell more pillows." The CEO has claimed that following his public statements on the 2020 election he has lost retailers and been the victim of "cancel culture."

Dominion is also suing Fox News for $1.6 billion, accusing the network of falsely reporting election fraud claims after being shown evidence that disproved the accusations leveled against the company.