nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,965
- 1,870
- Banned
- #1
I am sure that if Trump's lawyers passed the bar in some state, they would have known that one cannot make an empty threat and be ridiculed for it later when that threat cannot be fulfilled.
More likely, the immature (and ignorant) Trump INSISTED that his lawyer issue that :cease and desist" letter to the Macmillan Publishers of Wolff's book.
....And, sure enough, the publishers issued their own rebuttal:
The president is free to call news “fake” and to blast the media. That goes against convention, but it is not unconstitutional. But a demand to cease and desist publication—a clear effort by the President of the United States to intimidate a publisher into halting publication of an important book on the workings of the government—is an attempt to achieve what is called prior restraint. That is something that no American court would order as it is flagrantly unconstitutional.
This is very clearly defined in Supreme Court case law, most prominently in the Pentagon Papers case. As Justice Hugo Black explained in his concurrence:
“Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints. In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.”
Now, Wolff's book may be just gossipy, trashy talk that must go on in this hapless administration, BUT to attempt to ban ANY book's publication is the type of stupid decision that ONLY a deranged and narcissistic Trump would make.
More likely, the immature (and ignorant) Trump INSISTED that his lawyer issue that :cease and desist" letter to the Macmillan Publishers of Wolff's book.
....And, sure enough, the publishers issued their own rebuttal:
The president is free to call news “fake” and to blast the media. That goes against convention, but it is not unconstitutional. But a demand to cease and desist publication—a clear effort by the President of the United States to intimidate a publisher into halting publication of an important book on the workings of the government—is an attempt to achieve what is called prior restraint. That is something that no American court would order as it is flagrantly unconstitutional.
This is very clearly defined in Supreme Court case law, most prominently in the Pentagon Papers case. As Justice Hugo Black explained in his concurrence:
“Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints. In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.”
Now, Wolff's book may be just gossipy, trashy talk that must go on in this hapless administration, BUT to attempt to ban ANY book's publication is the type of stupid decision that ONLY a deranged and narcissistic Trump would make.
Last edited:
