Why in the world would Trump try to change the first amendment? That is just crazy…right?
But then I took a few deep breaths and calmed down and researched what was going on here. Thats when I realized this question is VERY misleading, so I will help to make sense of it.
First of all, the President has no power to amend the constitution. A constitutional amendment requires 75% of the states to ratify, so we can all rest assured that our constitution is safe.
Second, the suggestion that the president was trying to amend the Constitution was an opinion from a guest on a news program and who “thought” what the president was suggesting would require a constitutional amendment. He was mistaken because Constitutional rights are open to interpretation and are NOT absolute! Let me give you a few examples:
We all understand about freedom of speech. But that right is not guaranteed if as a result of that speech, a person or persons are put at risk. If I go into a crowded theater and yell fire, or yell “bomb” on an airliner, I cannot rely on my first amendment rights to protect me.
If I am a convicted Felon or a mental patient, my right to keep and bear arms may be forfeit as well, and we can all understand and agree that I would pose a potential threat to society.
Likewise, the press may be free to print what they like, but there are limits. Nick Sandman was just awarded a big settlement in court from a media outlet under current libel laws…as they refused to recant their reporting on him after it was shown to be inaccurate.
Richard Jewell is another such case where a mans life was basically ruined by the overzealousness of the press, and after filing lawsuits against them, 4 major outlets settled. If they had no liability, why would they pay a man whose reputation they destroyed. For those not familiar with the story, In 1996, while working as a security guard, he found a bomb in a park, called the police and evacuated people away from the area. But at some point in the investigation, they began to look at him as a suspect and the media ran with it, basically convicting the man in the news. Clint Eastwood directed a film about him in 2019.
So no, it would not require the changing of the Constitution to be able to secure damages under current libel laws as there is already a number of legal precedents for it!
In short, the president is NOT trying to change the first amendment, but rather make the media more accountable for intentionally misleading the public.
That seems like a very good thing to me!
Trump’s problem is not with the law, but with the Constitution. It was the Supreme Court in the case of New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan
[1] that decided the constitutional standard under which defamation lawsuits can be prosecuted.
The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper. The Court said the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment. The Court also said in order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice – “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.”
Other writers here, perhaps taking the lead of President Trump in the Tweet below, falsely believe that the press can just make stuff up and lie with impunity. As we see in the Supreme Court decision, that is not true. The press is not immune from defamation lawsuits. The standard of proof is a high one, high but not impossible.
Trump talked about changing the libel laws, but that’s not what has to be changed. Either the Supreme Court has to reverse itself, or the 1st Amendment must be changed.
