"Courts have long recognized that reporters are entitled to engage in legal and ordinary news-gathering activities without fear of tort liability — as these actions are at the very core of protected first amendment activity,."

Wrote the trial judge, Justice Robert R. Reed (State Supreme Court in Manhattan), quoted in "Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times/Former President Donald J. Trump, who had sued The Times, three of its reporters and his niece over an investigation into his tax returns, was ordered to pay The Times’s legal expenses" (NYT).

Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said: "It is an important precedent reaffirming that the press is protected when it engages in routine news gathering to obtain information of vital importance to the public." 

Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, said they'd "weigh" his "options," but not specifically whether he'd appeal, and they continue to assert that the Times "went well beyond the conventional news-gathering techniques permitted by the First Amendment."

Whoa! My bad law talk alarm went off! Don't say "permitted by the First Amendment."

The Times was free to do what it did unless there's some valid law that forbids it. Trump made a claim that what the Times did was not permitted because it violated tort law. If he was wrong about that and no tort law or other law was violated, then what the Times did would be permitted, regardless of constitutional law. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects against encroachments on freedom of speech and freedom of the press that might occur if tort law limits what is permitted. If. If tort law or other law doesn't limit, then you don't need permission from the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the defense against encroachment, not the source of permission!

I like the quote from Justice Reed because it's precise about the role of the First Amendment: It relieves us of the fear of aggressive interpretations tort law.

Mary Trump on How She Keeps Getting Away with Talking About Her Uncle.

Just kidding. The article — in Slate, by Dahlia Lithwick — is "Mary Trump on How Her Uncle Keeps Getting Away With It."

"Doing his best Mussolini imitation, he took off his mask in a macho display of invulnerability. He clenched his teeth and jutted out his jaw..."

"... just as my grandmother did when she was biting back anger or clamping down on her pain. In Donald, I saw the latter.... I have asthma, so I am acutely aware of what it looks like when somebody is struggling to breathe. He was in pain, he was afraid, but he would never admit that to anybody – not even himself. Because, as always, the consequences of admitting vulnerability were much more frightening to him than being honest."

Mary Trump has a new book, quoted in "Trump was ‘in pain and afraid’ during post-Covid display of bravado, niece’s book says/Mary Trump’s new book The Reckoning, seen by the Guardian, describes a national trauma worsened by her uncle" (The Guardian).

What is the value of Mary Trump's writing? The writing style isn't horrible, but she didn't have access to him. She was just watching him on television like the rest of us, right? Purporting to know the workings of his mind makes her less credible than those of us who would add phrases like "I think" to assertions like "he was afraid" or who would change that "was" to "looked." 

There are other efforts to bolster her authority. In that brief passage, I note "just as my grandmother did" and "I have asthma." Let's examine those 2 notions. 

1. "just as my grandmother did" — This must be a reference to Mary's grandmother who was the mother of Donald Trump. Mary has observed her grandmother and perhaps knows a style of holding her mouth and can say that Donald Trump's mouth has the same look. She implies that there are family mouth positions and other members of the family know what they mean. So Mary has special expertise at watching Donald Trump on television.

2. "I have asthma" — Mary claims a sort of medical expertise: "I am acutely aware of what it looks like when somebody is struggling to breathe." Really? You're aware of "what it looks like"? No, you're not looking at yourself when you are having an asthma attack. You are acutely aware of what it feels like, not what it looks like. Unless you do your asthma attacks in front of a mirror.

ADDED: I could write a book about Mary's book, in which I use Mary's approach to observational expertise against her. I would go through the book paragraph by paragraph and find every turn of phrase that I can characterize as evidence of the traits that she finds in Donald Trump and I would repetitively bolster my points by reminding the reader that Mary and Donald belong to the same family, so we can presume these are family traits. Whatever she says about him I can observe in her, and the only evidence I will need is her own book.

"President Donald Trump on Friday broke his silence on a tell-all book that dives into the president's upbringing and family life..."

"... distancing himself from his author niece and calling her a 'mess.' 'Mary Trump, a seldom seen niece who knows little about me, says untruthful things about my wonderful parents (who couldn’t stand her!) and me, and violated her NDA,' Trump wrote on Twitter. 'She’s a mess! Many books have been written about me, some good, some bad. Both happily and sadly, there will be more to come!'... Speaking with CNN's Chris Cuomo hours after Trump's tweet, Mary Trump [said] that she and her grandmother were 'very close.' 'My grandfather didn't really have positive feelings for anybody except perhaps Donald'.... During the explosive interview with Maddow [on Thursday], Mary Trump said that she had heard the president and other members of their family use anti-Semitic language and a derogatory slur on Black people."

From "A seldom seen niece': Trump fires back at Mary Trump over tell-all book/The author, in turn, delivers a live rebuttal on cable television" (Politico).

I'd thought that Trump was going to keep silent about Mary Trump — that silence would be an eloquent way to suggest that he knows a lot about her — leaving us to imagine that she may have mental health problems or complicated grudges and that Trump is honoring his beloved dead brother by leaving his daughter in a special sacred circle of immunity from his otherwise free-wheeling attacks.

And maybe that was what he'd decided to do but he had to reverse his position after the Maddow interview, because the poison of the accusation of racist speech requires an immediate antidote.

But was that an effective antidote? It's a hell of a thing to say to someone — your grandparents couldn't stand you.

I know I discarded the racist-speech accusation immediately because it's just about individual words that were used — used or mentioned? — in private. I need at least sentences — not isolated words — to have any idea whether what was said was even bad.

Here's the Rachel Maddow segment:



By the way: "When you ask a normal, right-handed person about something he's supposed to have seen, if he looks upward and to his left, he's truly accessing his memory of the incident... However, if he looks upward and to his right, he's accessing his imagination, and he's inventing an answer." Mary Trump repeatedly looked up and to the right to "see" the answers to the questions she was asked. I don't know if she's right-handed.

"'The House,' she writes, capitalizing it like this throughout, giving it a special, sort of sinister air, 'seemed to grow colder as I got older.'"

"She takes us in, past the neglected cement slab of a porch, into the library with studio family photos on the shelves but no books, down into the basement with fluorescent lights and black-and-white tile, 'an old upright piano that stood largely ignored because it was so badly out of tune it wasn’t even worth playing,' and 'my grandfather’s life-sized wooden Indian chief statues that were lined up against the far wall like sarcophagi,' as she describes. 'Across from the stairs, a huge mahogany bar, fully stocked with barstools, dusty glasses, and a working sink but no alcohol, had been built in the corner—an anomaly in a house built by a man who didn’t drink. A large oil painting of a black singer with beautiful, full lips and generous, swaying hips hung on the wall behind it. Wearing a curve-hugging gold-and-yellow dress with ruffles, she stood at the microphone, mouth open, hand extended. A jazz band made up entirely of black men dressed in white dinner jackets and black bow ties played behind her. The brasses glowed, the woodwinds glistened. The clarinetist, a sparkle in his eyes, looked straight out at me. I would stand behind the bar, towel slung over my shoulder, whipping up drinks for my imaginary customers. Or I would sit on one of the barstools, the only patron, dreaming myself inside that painting.' It’s these types of keen peeks into private places that give this book its oomph. We’re in the House."

From "'He Is and Always Will Be a Terrified Little Boy'/Mary Trump has not indicted her uncle. She has indicted the whole family. And that might be even more valuable" (Politico)

"She" = Mary Trump, describing Trump's childhood home.

Isn't there a rule — never read a book that has "PhD" next to the author's name on the cover?

Here, somebody asked the question at Quora, "Should I put 'PhD' after my name on the cover of my book?" Top answer:

Serious academic books rarely if ever include the author's qualification on the cover. I suppose it's a bit like saying "Trust me, I'm a doctor" - it makes you look shifty. A book should be judged on its content, not the author's educational status, which can be indicated in other parts of the book.

The trouble with advertising your qualification upfront is precisely the one you have indicated: is it relevant? is it even a proper degree? (Let's face it there is no shortage of dodgy PhDs out there.) I work in a library, and I have found that PhD or MD or whatever after the author's name on a cover is an almost certain sign of a book to be avoided.

ADDED: Overheard at Meadhouse:

"There, I made a post out of your idea."

"What was my idea?"

"I just wrote a whole post. Read the post!"

"I have to read your blog to know what my own ideas are?"

"Donald Trump suffered 'child abuse' at the hands of his father', the President's niece will claim in her explosive memoir...."

"Mary calls Fred Sr a ‘high functioning sociopath’, marked by a lack of empathy, a facility for lying and a lack of interest in others.... 'Donald's mother became ill when he was two and a half, suddenly depriving him of his main source of comfort and human contact. His father, Fred, became his only available parent. But Fred firmly believed that dealing with young children was not his duty, and kept to his twelve-hours-a-day, six-days-a-week job at Trump Management, as if his children could look after themselves. From the beginning, Fred's self-interest skewed his priorities and his care of children reflected his own needs, not theirs. He could not empathize with Donald's plight, so his son's fears and longings went unsoothed. Love meant nothing to Fred; he expected obedience, that was all. Over time, Donald became afraid that asking for comfort or attention would provoke his father's anger or indifference when Donald was most vulnerable. That Fred would become the primary source of Donald's solace when he was much more likely to be a source of fear or rejection put Donald in an intolerable position: total dependence on a caregiver who also caused him terror. Donald suffered deprivations that would scar him for life.'"

From "EXCLUSIVE: Donald Trump was a victim of 'child abuse' at the hands of his father, who 'caused him terror that would scar him for life', claims President's niece who believes he could be a 'sociopath' in explosive memoir" (Daily Mail).

The appellate court — lifting the TRO against Mary Trump's book — said "while parties are free to enter into confidentiality agreements, courts are not necessarily obligated to specifically enforce them."

It noted that NDAs are "alternatively enforceable through the impassion of money damages."

CNN reports.

As you may know, that's what I said yesterday, and so many of you jumped on me in the comments.

But I need to check another source. I can't believe the court wrote "the impassion of money damages." It has to be "the imposition of money damages." Who made the mistake? I hope it's CNN and not the court.

AND: Here's the New York state court opinion. It's the intermediate court, the Appellate Division, Second Department (Brooklyn):

While Ms. Trump unquestionably possesses the same First Amendment expressive rights belonging to all Americans, she also possesses the right to enter into contracts, including the right to contract away her First Amendment rights. Parties are free to limit their First Amendment rights by contract.... A court may enforce an agreement preventing disclosure of specific information without violating the restricted party’s First Amendment rights if the party received consideration in exchange for the restriction... A party may effectively relinquish First Amendment rights by executing a secrecy agreement in which the party receives significant benefits....

Here, the plaintiff has presented evidence that Ms. Trump, in exchange for valuable consideration, voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement...

It bears noting that, while parties are free to enter into confidentiality agreements, courts are not necessarily obligated to specifically enforce them. Whether to issue an injunction is a matter of equity. Confidentiality agreements are alternatively enforceable through the imposition of money damages.

So the error is CNN's.

"Mary Trump’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous Jr., said in a statement that while the judge’s order is temporary, 'it still is a prior restraint on core political speech...'"

"'... that flatly violates the First Amendment. We will immediately appeal. This book, which addresses matters of great public concern and importance about a sitting president in an election year, should not be suppressed even for one day.'... Simon & Schuster said in a filing late Tuesday night that it had already printed 75,000 copies and argued that it would be unconstitutional to stop it from distributing the book. At the same time, the publisher for the first time said that it did not know until recently that Mary Trump had signed a nondisclosure agreement as part of the inheritance settlement."

From "Publication of explosive tell-all book by Trump’s niece temporarily blocked by New York state judge" (WaPo). If prior restraints are indeed a problem here, let Trump collect damages for the breach of contract (if there is one).

"In a seminar... Mary [Trump] and her 15 or so fellow students analyzed the Compson family portrayed in novels such as 'The Sound and the Fury.' The Compsons bore some similarities to her own family..."

"...Like Donald Trump’s mother, the Compsons immigrated to the United States from Scotland, and the family was riven by dysfunction. At the time, Donald Trump was running his Atlantic City casinos, which went into bankruptcy, and preparing to divorce his first wife, Ivana, and marry Marla Maples."

From "Mary Trump once stood up to her uncle Donald. Now her book describes a ‘nightmare’ of family dysfunction" (WaPo).

The Compson family, eh? Here's the rundown of the supposedly Trump-like clan:

Jason Compson III – father of the Compson family, a lawyer who attended the University of the South: a pessimist and alcoholic, with cynical opinions that torment his son, Quentin. He also narrates several chapters of Absalom, Absalom!.
Caroline Bascomb Compson – wife of Jason Compson III: a self-absorbed neurotic who has never shown affection for any of her children except Jason, whom she seems to like only because he takes after her side of the family. In her old age she has become an abusive hypochondriac.
Quentin Compson III – the oldest Compson child: passionate and neurotic, he commits suicide as the tragic culmination of the damaging influence of his father's pessimistic philosophy and his inability to cope with his sister's sexual promiscuity....
Candace "Caddy" Compson – the second Compson child, strong-willed yet caring. Benjy's only real caregiver and Quentin's best friend. According to Faulkner, the true hero of the novel. Caddy never develops a voice; rather, her brothers' emotions towards her provide the development of her character.
Jason Compson IV – the bitter, openly racist third child who is troubled by monetary debt and sexual frustration. He works at a farming goods store owned by a man named Earl and becomes head of the household in 1912. Has been embezzling Miss Quentin's support payments for years.
Benjamin (nicknamed Benjy, born Maury) Compson – the mentally disabled fourth child, who is a constant source of shame and grief for his family...

Which one is Trump? Obviously, none, but WaPo is likening these characters to the Trump family, as if Mary Trump's book is a literary work like something by William Faulkner. There's even a long quote from the professor in that long-ago college seminar. He remembers here — 40 years later — as "smart and accomplished." She wrote "absolutely stunning papers, long, deep and elegant."

"The book will... allege that Trump and his father, Fred Trump Sr, contributed to the death of Trump's alcoholic elder brother Fred Trump Jr by failing to help him."

From "Donald Trump’s niece reveals in new book that she leaked details of his 'fraudulent' tax schemes, alleges he contributed to his brother’s death and says his retired federal judge sister disapproves of him" (Daily Mail).

The niece is the daughter of the brother who died. It's sad to think about what could have been done to prevent a death — sad to look for living persons to blame.

Most of the time, we soothe the survivors and tell them there's nothing they could have done, and when we choose to say, no, there are things you could have done that you did not do, it is probably not because those things were more obvious or had more potential to help.