Trump Law

Cease and desist what?

The fastest way to get your name in a newspaper or news broadcast is to try to keep it out.

   Lawyers for Donald Trump have sent letters to the author and the publisher of a new book critical of the president demanding that they cease and desist publication, stop talking about it, apologize and retract what's in the book or face a libel suit for compensatory and punitive damages.
   Good luck with that one.
   For one thing, if something is true, it's not libel.
   For another, comment and criticism of public figures is not necessarily libelous or defamatory, since they face different legal standards.
   Otherwise, actors would sue theater critics over negative reviews.
   As for public figures, there are only a handful of people in the world with greater exposure and influence than the president of the United States.

   In any case, if Trump can sue over what is said about him, then others can sue him for false, defamatory or even negative things he has said about them. Example: Trump's continued insistence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and therefore was not eligible to be president.
   Fact: Obama was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya. And even if he were to have been born outside the U.S., he inherited his citizenship from his mother, a native of Nebraska.
   Oddly, Trump and other GOP politicians said nothing about the citizenship and eligibility of Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada; or Sen. John McCain, who was born in Panama; or Mitt Romney's father George Romney, another presidential candidate, who was born in Mexico when his Mormon parents were on a missionary trip. The father of Ted Cruz was Cuban, but his mother was a native-born American. John McCain is the son of a U.S. Navy officer stationed in the Canal Zone at the time.
   
   As for the current threat of a libel suit over perceived negative information about Trump, the question becomes why a responsible lawyer would file such a groundless, frivolous lawsuit?
   But for now, this is only a threat, and news media are reporting it as such. At a local level, editors typically respond to such threats with this: When the lawsuit is filed, then we'll run the story.
   Such a threat by the president against an author and publisher, however, is not a local story. It is of national and international interest, especially when much of the information in the book is true, provably true, and printed in the public interest.
   And even if some of the stuff in the book is not true, the president is not immune from criticism. Any threat to stifle criticism endangers society.
   So why is the threat of a libel suit made? One can only speculate as to the president's motives. Here are several:
   -- He cannot abide disagreement or criticism.
   -- He believes that threats are enough to force compliance.
   -- He needs the publicity, even if it's negative.
   -- The lawyer needs the publicity, even though he knows the lawsuit is pointless.

   As for whether the threats are having an effect, consider this: Amazon says prepublication orders for the book have already sent it to number one on its best seller list, even though it won't be published until next week.
   But a much larger issue is this: What happens to American values when a president, or anyone, can prevent publication of a book simply because he doesn't like what's in it?