Trump’s legal complaints against CBS and The Washington Post reflect disregard for press freedom

In two complaints filed last week, Donald Trump claims that CBS and Washington Post broke the law by covering the presidential election in ways he didn’t like. His arguments, which seek to punish news outlets for constitutionally protected activity through legal theories that are bizarre at best, are consistent with Trump’s long history of ignoring the First Amendment by treating offensive speech as grounds for civil damages. damages, regulatory sanctions or even detention.

Trump lawsuit v. CBS, which he filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeks $10 billion in damages based on 60 minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, in which he speaks was edited to make her seem smarter than she actually is. He claims that the installation of the network was disrupted Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Law (DTPA).

This claim is based on two excerpts from Harris’ response to a question about Israel. One ran further Facing the nation as part of a promotion 60 minutes interview aired October 7; the other was presented as part of the interview itself the next day.

IN promo version, 60 minutes Correspondent Bill Whitaker says it “appears” that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “not listening” to US concerns about the war in the Gaza Strip. Harris responds with what Trump calls “his typical word salad,” saying, “Well, Bill, the work we’ve done has led to a number of Israeli movements in the region that were largely caused by or resulted from many things, including our advocacy that what needs to happen in the region.” IN version which aired the next day in a special 60 minutesHarris responds to the same prompt with an answer that is a little clearer, but still vague and oddly worded: “We are not going to stop doing what is necessary to ensure that the United States has a clear understanding of where we stand on the need to end this war.” “

In neither version does Harris come off as particularly sophisticated, knowledgeable, or outspoken. But like Trump sees thisreplacing the first answer with the last one was a “giant fake news scam” and “UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!!!” October 29 letter In an interview with CBS, Trump lawyer Edward Andrew Paltzik called the editing of the interview “one of the worst and most deceptive acts in the history of broadcasting.”

Trump complained that “Harris’ ACTUAL RESPONSE WAS CRAZY OR STUPID, so they
actually REPLACED it with another answer to save her or at least make her look better.” he was apparently referring to broadcast licenses held by network-owned stations and CBS affiliates across the country.

October 16 FCC complaint, American Rights Center argued that CBS violated the agency’s policy against “distorting broadcast news.” Proving such a statement is not an easy task. The Federal Communications Commission is “prohibited by law from censoring or violating the First Amendment rights of the press,” the commission said. notes. “News misrepresentation “must relate to a significant event and not merely to a minor or incidental aspect of the news report.” In assessing the constitutionality of a policy, courts have recognized that the policy “makes a critical distinction between intentional misrepresentation and mere inaccuracy or difference of opinion.” As a result, broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if it can be proven that they deliberately misrepresented factual news.”

October 20 CBS rejected Accusing Trump of “false editing.” In a statement, the network said the show “presented an excerpt from our Face the Nation interview that used a longer portion of her answer than was shown on 60 Minutes.” “Same question. Same answer. But the other part of the answer. When we edit any interview, be it (with) a politician, an athlete or a movie star, we strive to be clear, precise and accurate. The response on 60 Minutes was shorter, giving other subjects a wide range of 21 minutes.”

In other words, CBS acknowledged that it had selected a “shorter” portion of Harris’ response, but noted that it was standard journalistic practice. Trump, by contrast, says CBS not only violated the public trust in an “UNPRECEDENTED” way; by doing so, he violated the Texas Double Tax Treaty, which prohibits “false, deceptive or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

This law defines such conduct as actions or practices that “cause confusion or misunderstanding regarding the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.” The law also prohibits acts or practices that “cause confusion or misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection or association with or confirmation of another person.” Among other things, the DTPA seeks to protect consumers from “unfair practices,” defined as acts or practices that “to the detriment of the consumer, (exploit) the consumer’s lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or opportunity to an grossly unfair degree.”

Trump lawsuit speaks 60 minutes the interview “caused confusion or misunderstanding” among millions of Americans, and Texas residents in particular, “regarding the source, sponsorship, endorsement or certification” of CBS’ broadcast “services”, making it impossible for even the most discerning viewers to determine 60 minutes The interview was independent journalism or a de facto advertisement for Kamala’s campaign.” CBS also allegedly “caused confusion or misunderstanding regarding CBS’s affiliation, connection or association” with Kamala and her campaign and caused “confusion or misunderstanding.” As for CBS’s ‘interview certification’, given its legal obligation to broadcast news without distortion.” The lawsuit adds that the network’s conduct “was unconscionable because it constitutes a brazen attempt to interfere with the 2024 U.S. presidential election.” “

These violations by CBS stations in Texas, Trump said, caused damages “reasonably believed to be at least $10 million.” In support of this astonishing assessment, which seems to be plucked from thin air and resembles an equally absurd Trump’s assessments about the harm caused by speech that irritated him, a footnote states that “CBS’s distortion 60 minutes The interview caused billions of dollars in damage to President Trump’s fundraising and support efforts, particularly in Texas.”

Putting aside Trump’s questionable math, his invocation of the Anti-Fraud Act in the context of a complaint about news coverage raises obvious constitutional issues. “This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the media,” First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin. said CNN. “The Supreme Court has made clear: The First Amendment leaves it up to journalists, not the courts, the government or candidates for office, to decide how to report the news.”

Noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams took a similar view. “The First Amendment was designed to protect the press from exactly this type of litigation,” he said. said. “Mr. Trump may disagree with certain coverage of him, but the First Amendment allows the press to decide how to cover the election.” Harvard law professor Rebecca Tushnet agreed, saying Trump’s lawsuit is “ridiculous nonsense” that “should be ridiculed.”

In another attempt to circumvent the First Amendment, Trump filed a lawsuit on Thursday. complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which accuses Washington Post about an illegal donation to a corporate campaign. The complaint mentions a recent Semaphore story O Maila “paid advertising campaign” on social media that she “aggressively ramped up” last Monday to promote “dozens of election-related stories.” Semaphore noted that articles about Harris “were relatively neutral in tone,” while articles about Trump were generally more “critical.”

Recent articles have included stories “about Trump’s campaign rhetoric, his misstatements, his allies’ efforts to ‘energize him as he struggles to adapt to Harris,’ how his campaign has damaged Springfield, Ohio, and his fixation on fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter, as crowds leave his rallies early and he questions the results of the 2020 election.” Semaphore presented the advertising campaign as an attempt to “remind readers that ( Mail) is still pretty tough on Donald Trump,” despite his controversial decision refrain from supporting a presidential candidate this year.

Trump, by contrast, portrays the ad campaign as a violation of the federal ban on corporate campaign contributions. “Coordinated communications are treated as non-monetary contributions to the candidate,” his complaint states. As evidence of coordination, Trump lawyer Gary Lokowski notes that stories promoted Mail included “multiple quotes (from) Harris campaign officials” which he said “confirmed that between Washington Post and the Harris campaign.” Moreover, he said, “content promoted Washington Post reflects the themes and issues raised by the Harris campaign.”

In other words, according to Lavkovsky, Mail crossed the line by quoting the presidential campaign while covering the presidential election and talking about the issues raised by the campaign. In the event that the Federal Election Commission does not agree to this, Lavkovsky “as an alternative” argues that Mailpromoting election coverage amounted to unreported “independent expenses.”

This category includes “overt propaganda,” such as “Vote for Harris.” It also includes communications that “as a whole and with limited reference to external events such as the proximity of an election, could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing support for the election or the defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s).” MailThe promotion of negative stories about Trump fit the latter description, Lackowski argues, because it was “close in timing to the election,” reflected “Harris’ campaign themes,” and “sharply and unfairly insult(ed) President Trump while presenting a flattering portrait Vice President Harris.”

Lawkowski acknowledges that federal regulation of “independent expenditures” expressly exempts any “press organization” that is “acting within the scope of its “lawful press function.” Mail does not fall within this exception. “By promoting content to influence elections,” he says,Washington Post acts like any other party participant in the electoral process, and not as a media outlet.”

Trump’s complaint to the Federal Election Commission is “completely absurd,” said Columbia University law professor Richard Briffault, an expert on campaign finance. said CNBC. “There is no evidence to support the allegations of any coordination between Mail and the Harris campaign… And as Trump’s letter admits, it doesn’t explicitly endorse Harris, so MailThe actions are not considered independent costs… This is a trial by press release, and no more serious.”

Trump has sued or threatened to sue critics who repeatedly said things that offended him defended more lenient defamation rules that improve his chances of prevailing in such cases and argued that news organizations should lose your broadcast license when their reporting puts him in a bad light. In these latest cases, Trump is also trying to turn his complaints about unfair press coverage into legal claims that would either attract civil penalties or justify billions of dollars in damages. While these claims are unlikely to gain widespread acceptance, his determination to pursue them reflects his complete disregard for press freedom.