It's just one attack after another on free speech that Trump decides should not be heard.

We're a lesser country for it.

Newspapers are free to publish defamatory information, but they cannot do so with impunity if their speech qualifies as libel.

So this could also be framed as an abuse of free speech.

We'll have to wait to see how the court rules on this case.

They can't do so if they know that info is incorrect. That's it. They can be wrong for any other reason.

Correct; however, in the internet age it is all too easy to verify information if you are remotely neutral. It would be nearly impossible to be ignorant of facts that contradict a story.

Generally, these news publishers are more interested in entertainment than truth telling. They get paid for monetizing attention, not telling the truth. They can’t outright lie, but they are certainly not bound by facts.

As the old saying goes, “Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story”. A newsroom mantra if there ever was one.

All that to say defamation suits are always a risk. The bar is high, but most “victims” are not rich enough to fight them. Those that are get settlements.

> in the internet age it is all too easy to verify information

I have very much found that to not be the case.

I suppose we disagree. It requires effort, but I couldn’t call it difficult. What’s your experience?

You can pull unprecedented amounts of information about nearly anything. It’s easily accessible.

It was not even possible to verify the kind of “facts” we can today, much less at the speed we can do it now.

We can call it stupid without waiting for the court.

If the court rules in his favor, we can call that stupid too.

Like does it really claim that giving Burnett credit for the Apprentice harms Trump's reputation? Stupid.

You would only wait if you're patient. Trump loses 93% of cases in court: https://democracyforward.org/updates/trump-loses-93-percent-...

Trump's legal history long before politics has been to be as aggressive as possible, threaten everyone involved in the process, opposing legal council, judges and so on with his own false claims and so on.

In one lawsuit Trump's lawyers claimed opposing lawyers should be removed from a lawsuit because they're sexually attracted to Trump's lawyers.

Ol' minihands sues a _lot_ of people, but rarely successfully. It would be existential if it was a serious threat with a real case that would hold together, but given the history one could be forgiven for assuming it's just the usual posturing.