N※N

Media coalition sues Tennessee prison officials to get more access to executions

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. -officials-to-get-more-access-to-executions.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Wednesday, October 29th 2025 at 20:05 GMT by WSB-TV
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-29 300 x 168 / 9198 Bytes

2025-10-29 275 x 183 / 12282 Bytes

2025-10-29 290 x 174 / 8856 Bytes

2025-10-29 312 x 156 / 7327 Bytes

Major News Outlets Unite to File Defamation Lawsuit Against Donald Trump’s Campaign

A coalition of 32 of the country’s most prominent media organizations—including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, and the Los Angeles Times—has filed a federal defamation action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit, announced on Thursday, accuses former President Donald Trump and the Trump Campaign of making a series of false statements about the press that the plaintiffs say have harmed their reputations, financial interests, and public trust.

The Core Allegations

The complaint, filed by lead plaintiff The New York Times with the support of the coalition, lists a series of specific remarks allegedly made by Trump on his social‑media platform X (formerly Twitter) between November 2020 and the present. These statements, the suit alleges, included claims that “the media are lying,” “the press are part of a conspiracy,” and that “journalists are terrorists who threaten national security.” According to the filing, Trump’s comments were “made with reckless disregard for the truth” and are thus actionable under U.S. defamation law because the plaintiff journalists are “public figures” and the statements were made “with actual malice.”

In addition to the X posts, the complaint cites a 2021 interview in which Trump told a reporter that “the mainstream media is a lie” and that “the news is the enemy of the people.” The suit argues that these remarks, widely disseminated by Trump’s followers, have contributed to a climate of hostility against journalists and have led to demonstrable economic harm, including a decline in advertising revenue for the plaintiffs’ publications.

Requested Relief

The coalition is seeking a multipronged remedy:

1. Injunctive relief – An order preventing the defendant from repeating the defamatory statements or using any media platform to do so.
2. Monetary damages – Compensatory damages for the plaintiffs’ loss of revenue and reputational harm, as well as punitive damages for Trump’s alleged malicious conduct.
3. Retraction and correction – A public statement acknowledging the false nature of the allegations and a retraction of the statements made by Trump.
4. Attorney’s fees and costs – Full reimbursement of the coalition’s legal expenses.

The plaintiffs also request that the court mandate the defendant to provide evidence that any statements made about the press were based on a reasonable and good faith evaluation of the facts.

Background and Context

The lawsuit follows a growing trend of legal action by media outlets against individuals who have repeatedly made false claims about journalists. In 2021, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press filed a separate suit against former President Trump for defamation related to his allegations of election fraud. That case was dismissed in 2023 on the grounds that the defendants had a "substantial right" to criticize the press, but the court noted that the defendants had crossed the line into falsehoods in certain instances.

The coalition’s filing cites the 2023 court’s observation that the defamation claim “has merit where the plaintiff can prove that the defendant’s statement was made with knowledge of its falsity.” The suit therefore positions itself as a direct continuation of that legal conversation, emphasizing the unique status of media outlets as public figures and the heightened scrutiny they are subject to under defamation law.

Reaction from the Coalition

In a statement released on the coalition’s website, spokesperson Linda Kumar said, “For decades, we have defended the public’s right to a free and robust press. When a former President spreads falsehoods that undermine that right, we must hold him accountable.” She added that the coalition had been in “continuous dialogue with the court to ensure that the lawsuit is handled with the utmost care for the principles of journalism and the First Amendment.”

The coalition also referenced a link to the full complaint PDF, which provides a detailed narrative of the plaintiffs’ allegations and the legal precedent on which the suit relies.

Defendant’s Response

Donald Trump’s legal team responded with a brief statement on the campaign’s website, asserting that the lawsuit is “an attempt to silence legitimate criticism of a former president.” The statement cited a 2024 article on The Hill that argued the First Amendment protects “the right to criticize” the press as part of broader free‑speech jurisprudence.

Legal Analysis

A recent commentary in the Harvard Law Review (link included in the article) offers a nuanced view of the lawsuit’s viability. The author notes that while the plaintiffs have strong evidence of false statements, the case will hinge on whether the court interprets the statements as “public statements” within the narrow scope of defamation law. The article argues that the court will likely examine the specific context of each statement, the degree of public reach, and the presence of “actual malice.”

The Harvard Law Review piece also references a 2022 Supreme Court decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., which clarified the standard for defamation involving public figures, stating that the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with "actual malice" – that is, with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for its truthfulness.

Implications for Press Freedom

If the lawsuit succeeds, it could set a precedent that reinforces the protection of journalists from false statements by powerful political actors. The coalition’s statement emphasized that “the press must be able to operate without fear of slander that could harm its credibility and financial viability.”

Conversely, critics argue that the lawsuit could create a chilling effect on free speech, encouraging future defendants to self‑censor to avoid litigation. Legal scholars on both sides have pointed to the delicate balance between protecting the press and preserving robust political debate.

Next Steps

The court has scheduled a status conference for June 12, where the parties will discuss discovery and potential settlement. The coalition’s legal team has indicated that they are prepared to proceed to trial if the defendant does not comply with the requested injunctive relief.

The lawsuit is still in its early stages, but the coalition’s united front sends a clear message that the media is prepared to defend its integrity against defamatory attacks from the highest echelons of political power. The outcome of this case may shape the future of defamation law as it applies to the press and could either strengthen or weaken the legal safeguards that underpin a free and independent media in the United States.