The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
A Victory for Free Speech
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The litigation brought by Stormy Daniels against Donald Trump has had its day of reckoning. The adult-film star who sued the president for defamation not only lost a portion of her lawsuit but was ordered to pay the president’s legal bills. All this was a resounding victory for the freedom of speech.

After the right to life, protected by the Fifth and 14th amendments, and the right to be left alone, protected by the Fourth, the freedom of speech, protected by the First, is our most cherished. James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, was careful to refer to speech as “the” freedom of speech so as to underscore the Framers’ unambiguous belief that free speech is pre-political. Stated differently, it existed before the government did and thus did not come from the government. As it does not originate in the government, Madison and company believed it originates in our humanity.

Earlier this week, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that Daniels’ efforts to use the courts to punish the president for his exercising the freedom of speech were frivolous.

Here is the back story.

Daniels claims that she and Trump had a consensual sexual encounter in a Lake Tahoe hotel room in 2006, shortly after Trump’s youngest son, Barron, was born. On CBS’ “60 Minutes” program, she told Anderson Cooper of the sexual experience in vivid and graphic detail. Trump has denied many times that he had a sexual encounter with Daniels.

Daniels also told Cooper that she had been with Trump in public after their encounter, and she produced a photo of them together in a public place. She then told him that after she and Trump had ended their friendship, a stranger approached her in the parking lot of a Las Vegas fitness center and threatened to harm her if she failed to keep the existence of her relationship with Trump quiet.

She even produced a sketch of a man she said depicted the person who threatened her. In the same interview, she revealed that Michael Cohen, then Trump’s personal lawyer and today a government witness against him, paid her $130,000 to remain quiet about her alleged affair with Trump, and she accepted the money and agreed to stay quiet.

Trump wasn’t having any of this. He tweeted that the depiction of the man Daniels claimed threatened her bears a striking resemblance to her former husband and that she had made up the story of their sexual encounter, as well as the story of the parking lot threat. He called the version of events she gave to Cooper a “con job.”

While Daniels’ back-and-forth with Trump was going on, her lawyers filed litigation in federal court seeking to invalidate the nondisclosure agreement she signed with Cohen and accusing Trump of defamation when he said she had pulled off a con job. On Monday of this week, at Trump’s request, a judge dismissed the defamation claim.


Bad cases often make good law, and this is one of them. Whether one believes Daniels or Trump about what may have happened in a Lake Tahoe hotel room 12 years ago, one can appreciate the free speech values at play here. The Bill of Rights in general — and the First Amendment in particular — articulates negative rights. Stated differently, the First Amendment doesn’t grant the freedom of speech (we know that from Madison’s use of the word “the” preceding the word “freedom”); rather, it negates the ability of the government, which includes the courts, to infringe upon speech.

The “free” in “free speech” means free from government infringement. So, if Daniels calls Trump directly or by implication an adulterer on national television, he can take to Twitter to proclaim that she has perpetrated a con job — and he can do so with impunity.

The failure of the courts to protect Trump’s right to challenge his accuser’s veracity in public — or the use of the courts to attempt to intimidate Trump from proffering that challenge by making him pay for it — would have constituted an infringement by the government of Trump’s free speech rights.

Sending a signal that there was no legal basis to claim that “con job” in reply to “adulterer” was defamatory and unwilling to be the instrument through which speech — even the rough-and-tumble variety Trump often employs — could be punished, deterred or infringed upon by the government, the court found Daniels’ defamation claim to be frivolous. She and her lawyers ought to have known the defamation claim would not prevail, and thus she or they (at this writing, it is unclear who) were ordered to pay the legal bills Trump incurred for defending the defamation claim.

The United States has a long and storied history with the freedom of speech. The same generation that ratified the First Amendment — in some cases, the same human beings — also enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prohibited speech defamatory of the government. Thomas Jefferson pardoned all who were convicted under this dreadful and unconstitutional law, including a member of Congress. Yet Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt all punished dissenters for the anti-war speech they uttered in wartime, and they got away with punishing them.

But since a unanimous opinion in 1969 involving hateful words uttered by a Ku Klux Klansman, the Supreme Court has held that all innocuous speech is absolutely protected from government interference and that all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge or rebut it. This has led to our robust modern jurisprudence, which declares that individuals decide for themselves what to say and hear. The government does not decide for us.

In America, it may take a tawdry tale of sex in a hotel room to bring these values to light.

Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Free Speech 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Will someone with expertise in defamation law and the First Amendment please provide some clarification?

    Mr. Napolitano has squandered his reputation around here by carrying water for the Establishment when it comes to President Trump and Russia. I suspect the objective of this column is to keep “Stormy” in the news and to distract readers from the emerging details of DOJ/FBI misconduct in the 2016 election and since.

    Whatever his objectives, Mr. Napolitano’s thoughts seem muddled. Does he believe that American courts should not entertain any defamation claims? If not, where is the line to be drawm? For example, if instead of countering with “con job” President Trump had filed a defamation claim against Ms. Daniels for accusing him of adultery and threatened harm, would the court’s entertainment of that lawsuit violate the First Amendment?

    • Agree: Bubba
    • Replies: @Bubba
  2. ‘the freedom of speech, protected by the First, is our most cherished.’

    These rights are culture-specific. Roman culture, to be precise. Other, more successful cultures prize their right to accurate, truthful information over their right to express themselves publicly.

    • Replies: @Gordo
    , @Biff
  3. It’s not really my scene, but I gotta say: it’s not everyday that you effectively get a refund from a prostitute. Tip o’ the hat.

  4. Gordo says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    These rights are culture-specific. Roman culture, to be precise. Other, more successful cultures prize their right to accurate, truthful information over their right to express themselves publicly.

    Our successful culture here in Britain has led to knock-in-the-night policing of anyone who criticises our establishment and its treasonous policies.

    Americans should guard their constitution fiercely.

  5. Bubba says:

    Judge Napolitano is delusional – he should ask Mark Steyn how he feels about how wonderful our court system is concerning the freedom of speech. It’s a joke and the legal process is the punishment. Mr. Steyn is a defendant in the 7th year of a never ending lawsuit launched by a serial litigant and a fraudulent scientist concerning the 1st Amendment. I’m not optimistic about the 1st Amendment surviving with most of the judges that Obama & Bush II appointed. Certain ethnic groups like Muslims are easily aggrieved by free speech and they will eventually start winning court decisions that limit free speech.

    Anon 340 – my apologies for the reply on another comment section. It was supposed to be directed to another commenter making scurrilous accusations, definitely not you. I made a terrible mistake – sorry about that. And I agreed with all of your comments on that post!

    • Replies: @anonymous
  6. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Thanks. For all of that.

    And I agree that another one of the annoying, subliminal themes in Mr. Napolitano’s columns is that of people being in a more virtuous part of the Establishment when beating each other with that third branch.

  7. Biff says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    You do not have rights. What you have are temporary privileges. Enjoy them while they last.

  8. @Mark P Miller

    A refund from a whore (or “sex worker” as some insist) always comes at a cost. Best to avoid them altogether.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2