This is a useful, clear example of reporting - thank you.
Perhaps the Justices on the Supreme Court will read this with both respect for its thoroughness, its impartiality, its adherence to fact and factually reasoned conclusions.
So, for Americans and for the courts, it is important that you plainly note that Trump "... cares less about the facts and more about making life difficult for the WSJ and other defendants so that next time, they will think twice about running a story that he won’t like."
Why is this case such a big deal?
The president of the United States is using the judicial system to silence media companies that report things that he doesn’t like or agree with.
The Supreme Court has long emphasized that the First Amendment enables “all persons. . .to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” The Constitution forbids the federal government from using its massive financial, investigative, and law enforcement powers, in the Court’s words, “to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”
This lawsuit is not about defamation. It’s about free speech, which is under assault in the United States like never before in the history of the nation. This affects every single American—not just the media. Because the freedom to speak signifies the freedom to think freely, too."
Also essential to be fully mindful of herein is, as you observe, "If a public figure (versus a regular person) wants to file a defamation case, the Supreme Court held in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan that the individual must demonstrate 'actual malice.' That is, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant made the defamatory statement 'with knowledge that [its statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.'
This means that because Trump is the president and filed this case, the WSJ could also win by demonstrating to the judge that the media company had reason to believe the story was true at the time the article was published. For a media company like the WSJ, it’s exceptionally hard to believe that its editors would publish a story without rigorously fact-checking it." We can almost be assured that WSJ and Dow Jones have the facts to back this up, fully aware of New York Times v Sullivan.
This action by Trump enables one to, so to speak, put one's finger on his motives. He has, regularly and frequently, shrugged off reporting of incidents that common sense says reveals his fragile moral sensibiltiy [if he retains any moral sensibilities, which I would say he doesn't boast about]. What motives might he have?
Trump chooses to power through the most obvious facts with his version of 'reality' and of himself. Call that tendency [compulsion?] what you will. He does it with not any apparent sense embarrassment or indecency.
This is a very different choice than is made by any of us who understand the need for acting in good faith in any and all of our relationships.
In relation to your observation about the distinction between a case of defamatory action and a case about constitutionally protected expression, in this case news reporting, we see clearly that Trump is powering his way through constitutionally protected norms, using defamation as cover for so doing, in order to power his way to his preferred civil society outcome [never ever cross Donald Trump, never ever get in Donald Trump's way].
Here, then, we have a moment of view which is horizon to horizon. To exert without restraints -- neither internal nor external restraints -- his willful sense of personal agency in the world.
If I am correct, if I seem not so I really hope to be given some reasons, then we have an insight that reminds us of the worlds apart differences between choosing to power through [or to unrestainedly exert willful agency in the world, that part of the latter that is our society] events and circumstances as distinct from sincere use of constitutional governance authority to constitutionally further and realize interest outcomes in the public interest.
The history of the formation of the ideas of human beings and human society that enabled proposing our democratic society and our constitutional democratic rule of law society substantially hinges on the living evidence of voluntary governance that is self-governance, governance we choose together to do together within the context of a formal agreement and with the intention, the good faith intention, to follow these rules together to achieve common goods and the common good of a social order that is free of violent conflict [within] and restrained by good faith exercise of personal will and commitment to just reconciliation of disagreements, harms, and abuses of rule of law.
For one example of the difference between a willful choice to exert power and the willful choice to use constitutional authority to willfully fulfill a task of office in the course of being part of governing, it seems to me that what makes confusing the choices of the current Roberts Court majority is the majority's members' willingness to choose to exert power in the place of constitutional authority. The constitutionality of the case at hand is not always acted on by them as a matter of constitutionality, of statutory interpretation,... what we expect of Supreme Court judicial review and decision; instead of a governance choice, a choice to exert power over governance is chosen, sometimes presented terms of text or doctrine that do, or can be used in good faith, to serve purpose for good governance.
To me, the Roberts majority lacks the will to act in good faith, to serve only to serve up justice for good governance; instead, this majority seeks and finds opportunities to exert power that lacks constitutionality, that lacks constitutional purpose, that weakens constitutional governance and the protections and responsibilities of the American people.
Many examples of actions by this majority come to mind. All are harmful.
The historian Prof Stephen Kotkin also helps us clearly disguish between:
ruling society by means of acquiring sufficient kinds of power and relationships to sustain that power [the Putin regime, for example];
and, choosing to act according to law to govern.
Our own Constitution is not some set of principles and forms for managing competing power centers; it is a design for rule of law governance that is willfully sustained by our society's people's will to govern themselves and to govern according to a set of publicly constituted forms, rules of relationship among separate branches of government responsibility and means, the end of which is constitutional governance for the benefit of the people, not for any center of power in society.
Another interesting example, which is currently on-going, i.e., in the making, is the apparent conflicting legislative and executive choices of form for independent anti-corruption institutions in Ukraine. Here the problem is the power that is behind corruption [with a long history and with foreign origins as well as domestic partners]; the holders of this power seek corrupt means to hold, exert and expand the effective use of power, while Ukraine civil society, the Ukrainian people, seek to use governance, lawful governance authority and tools to restrain and then end corrupt power and corruption of society.
This is a useful, clear example of reporting - thank you.
Perhaps the Justices on the Supreme Court will read this with both respect for its thoroughness, its impartiality, its adherence to fact and factually reasoned conclusions.
So, for Americans and for the courts, it is important that you plainly note that Trump "... cares less about the facts and more about making life difficult for the WSJ and other defendants so that next time, they will think twice about running a story that he won’t like."
Why is this case such a big deal?
The president of the United States is using the judicial system to silence media companies that report things that he doesn’t like or agree with.
The Supreme Court has long emphasized that the First Amendment enables “all persons. . .to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” The Constitution forbids the federal government from using its massive financial, investigative, and law enforcement powers, in the Court’s words, “to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”
This lawsuit is not about defamation. It’s about free speech, which is under assault in the United States like never before in the history of the nation. This affects every single American—not just the media. Because the freedom to speak signifies the freedom to think freely, too."
Also essential to be fully mindful of herein is, as you observe, "If a public figure (versus a regular person) wants to file a defamation case, the Supreme Court held in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan that the individual must demonstrate 'actual malice.' That is, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant made the defamatory statement 'with knowledge that [its statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.'
This means that because Trump is the president and filed this case, the WSJ could also win by demonstrating to the judge that the media company had reason to believe the story was true at the time the article was published. For a media company like the WSJ, it’s exceptionally hard to believe that its editors would publish a story without rigorously fact-checking it." We can almost be assured that WSJ and Dow Jones have the facts to back this up, fully aware of New York Times v Sullivan.
This action by Trump enables one to, so to speak, put one's finger on his motives. He has, regularly and frequently, shrugged off reporting of incidents that common sense says reveals his fragile moral sensibiltiy [if he retains any moral sensibilities, which I would say he doesn't boast about]. What motives might he have?
Trump chooses to power through the most obvious facts with his version of 'reality' and of himself. Call that tendency [compulsion?] what you will. He does it with not any apparent sense embarrassment or indecency.
This is a very different choice than is made by any of us who understand the need for acting in good faith in any and all of our relationships.
In relation to your observation about the distinction between a case of defamatory action and a case about constitutionally protected expression, in this case news reporting, we see clearly that Trump is powering his way through constitutionally protected norms, using defamation as cover for so doing, in order to power his way to his preferred civil society outcome [never ever cross Donald Trump, never ever get in Donald Trump's way].
Here, then, we have a moment of view which is horizon to horizon. To exert without restraints -- neither internal nor external restraints -- his willful sense of personal agency in the world.
If I am correct, if I seem not so I really hope to be given some reasons, then we have an insight that reminds us of the worlds apart differences between choosing to power through [or to unrestainedly exert willful agency in the world, that part of the latter that is our society] events and circumstances as distinct from sincere use of constitutional governance authority to constitutionally further and realize interest outcomes in the public interest.
The history of the formation of the ideas of human beings and human society that enabled proposing our democratic society and our constitutional democratic rule of law society substantially hinges on the living evidence of voluntary governance that is self-governance, governance we choose together to do together within the context of a formal agreement and with the intention, the good faith intention, to follow these rules together to achieve common goods and the common good of a social order that is free of violent conflict [within] and restrained by good faith exercise of personal will and commitment to just reconciliation of disagreements, harms, and abuses of rule of law.
addendum
For one example of the difference between a willful choice to exert power and the willful choice to use constitutional authority to willfully fulfill a task of office in the course of being part of governing, it seems to me that what makes confusing the choices of the current Roberts Court majority is the majority's members' willingness to choose to exert power in the place of constitutional authority. The constitutionality of the case at hand is not always acted on by them as a matter of constitutionality, of statutory interpretation,... what we expect of Supreme Court judicial review and decision; instead of a governance choice, a choice to exert power over governance is chosen, sometimes presented terms of text or doctrine that do, or can be used in good faith, to serve purpose for good governance.
To me, the Roberts majority lacks the will to act in good faith, to serve only to serve up justice for good governance; instead, this majority seeks and finds opportunities to exert power that lacks constitutionality, that lacks constitutional purpose, that weakens constitutional governance and the protections and responsibilities of the American people.
Many examples of actions by this majority come to mind. All are harmful.
The historian Prof Stephen Kotkin also helps us clearly disguish between:
ruling society by means of acquiring sufficient kinds of power and relationships to sustain that power [the Putin regime, for example];
and, choosing to act according to law to govern.
Our own Constitution is not some set of principles and forms for managing competing power centers; it is a design for rule of law governance that is willfully sustained by our society's people's will to govern themselves and to govern according to a set of publicly constituted forms, rules of relationship among separate branches of government responsibility and means, the end of which is constitutional governance for the benefit of the people, not for any center of power in society.
Another interesting example, which is currently on-going, i.e., in the making, is the apparent conflicting legislative and executive choices of form for independent anti-corruption institutions in Ukraine. Here the problem is the power that is behind corruption [with a long history and with foreign origins as well as domestic partners]; the holders of this power seek corrupt means to hold, exert and expand the effective use of power, while Ukraine civil society, the Ukrainian people, seek to use governance, lawful governance authority and tools to restrain and then end corrupt power and corruption of society.