This is what you get when you take on the guy who "buys ink by the barrel".

[CincyDem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/opinion/donald-trump-vs-a-free-press.html?_r=0

"The Times is, of course, very familiar with threats of litigation by government officials and other public figures who oppose the paper’s reporting on them. It was New York Times v. Sullivan, the unanimous 1964 Supreme Court decision, that set forth the principle that promoting speech of public interest is foundational to a democracy, and therefore a newspaper would be protected from libel claims brought by public figures, even if it printed erroneous statements, as long as the newspaper did not know the statement was false, or recklessly disregard its truth or falsity.

In his opinion for the court, Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote that “public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.” Such discussion “may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”


WRITE A COMMENT
In Donald Trump’s view, these principles shouldn’t exist. “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,” he said in February. Never mind that as president, he would have no power to alter state libel laws.

Of course, Mr. Trump’s threat to sue may be an empty one, as so many of his previous threats — intended mainly to energize his angry base — have been. But it is yet another frightening reminder of what a Trump presidency could bring."

[spooky3]

1. And, here, IMHO, these women are telling the truth.

They have no reason to lie, and many reasons to keep quiet. I'm sure there are dozens of others who have chosen to remain quiet even now. I realize this is not part of the legal reasoning re: media obligations, but for me, it "trumps" all.

[upaloopa]

2. The Times said you can't libel Trump's chacracter because he has no character to protect

[chillfactor]

3. AMEN! n/t

[spooky3]

4. I think they said that about "reputation."

[upaloopa]

5. Yes you are right

[csziggy]

6. Here is the exact quote from the NY Times attorneys

The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one?s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host's request to discuss Mr. Trump's own daughter as a "piece of ass." Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump's unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.
http://documents.latimes.com/read-new-york-times-response-donald-trumps-lawyers/

[Stonepounder]

7. Another scary thing about Trump is that he doesn't seem to have

any real idea about how the Federal Government works. The President doesn't make law. He can't introduce bills, he can't vote on them, and he certainly can't issue proclamations changing law. Even if it was a Tea-Party/alt-Right landslide, Congress is going to guard its rights and privileges jealously. And even the most zealous judges have to get Advise and Consent from the Senate before take the bench and even the most Conservative of the sitting justices would not go along with Trumpian fantasies.

Of course, Trump would have the launch codes and would probably simply hasten the coming climate change upheaval by throwing us into MAD and pretty much wiping out life as we know it.