A few thoughts about the Trump libel suit: The complaint is red meat for the president's base and won't succeed on the merits, but I'm still concerned about it.
The essence of our political system is public participation, and baseless suits like this one can chill speech about newsworthy political issues—intimidating and discouraging others from speaking out, in view of the risk of being sued and the corresponding costs.
This is precisely why we have the First Amendment. The Supreme Court once said that "public discussion is a political duty," and in a landmark case involving no less than The New York Times, in 1964, the Court observed:
Ours is a country with "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
To effectuate that principle, the Court held that for a public official to win a libel claim, he or she must prove that the defendant made the statement at issue knowing it was false, or made the statement in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
The Court's intention was to create maximal space for discussion of public affairs. It's worthwhile to keep these First Amendment traditions in mind as the president's case, such as it is, goes forward.
