Mark Small

The IBT item notes that, three years later, “Twitter users are still not over” Mrs Trump’s actions. Issue has resurfaced: some criticize her taking legal action & some mock her that ‘it doesn’t change the fact that she has looked and behaved’ like one.” 3/19

“‘Cheap & common would be a good alternative. After all, she couldn't even afford clothes in those pictures,’ one commented implying about Melania’s nude photos.” Armecin, IBT, 01/05/20 4/19

First, Mrs Trump not only is a public, but now also a political, figure. “public officials and public figures have voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehood concerning them. ... 5/19

No such assumption is justified with respect to a private individual. He has not accepted public office or assumed an "influential role in ordering society." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974). 6/19

Standard of proof 2 B met by plaintiff (i.e., Mrs Trump) is actual malice: Knowledge (by person who utters or publishes defamatory statement) that statement is false, or reckless disregard about whether the statement is true. Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th ed., 2014, p. 1101. 7/19

We are more protective of political speech. “There is, first, a strong interest in debate on public issues, and, second, a strong interest in debate about those persons who are in a position significantly to influence the resolution of those issues. ... 8/19

Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized. ... 9/19

..the "public official" designation applies at very least to those among hierarchy of govt employees who have, or appear 2 public 2 have, subst’l responsibility 4/control over conduct of govt affairs. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). 10/19

Mrs. Trump has chosen to take the stage and - scowl though she may, especially when her husband’s back is turned - she is held to that standard. The lawsuits were “settled,” apparently, in Britain. 11/19

One may reasonably infer British law applied since plaintiff chose the forum & their law of defamation is > favorable for pltf than ours. Of course, we broke from His Majesty’s government in 1776 to enjoy Liberty (for white, male landowners; others, not so much). 12/19

2nd: Mocking Mrs Trump about how she looks and that she appears ‘cheap & common’ are tasteless and unnecessary. From her public statements and how she appears - do you care? - she is rude. 13/19

Appearance-shaming is unnecessary & no different fr when ppl demeaning our former First Lady. Mrs Trump has horrible taste in clothes - and in decorating the People’s House (i.e., the White House), etc - but that’s no reflection of her character. 14/19

3rd: Mrs Trump gained mat’l advantage via marriage to dt. All-purpose public figures have pos’ns of such persuasive pwr & influence to B deemed public. They invite attention and comment. 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1972). 15/19

When the settlement of Mrs Trump’s lawsuit was read aloud by her lawyer, John Kelly, in London's Royal Courts of Justice, it read in part: "The allegations strike at the heart of the claimant's personal integrity ... 16/19

... and dignity. The claimant has not acted as alleged. The suggestion that such allegations even merit investigation is deeply offensive and has caused a great deal of upset to the claimant. ...” 17/19

We’ve had 3 yrs to observe the callous regime of which she is a part. Reports: she sleeps in a different bdrm on different floor fr dt. No indication she accepted a quid pro quo. Bummer. 18/19