UPDATE: DRUMPF / TRUMP RAGE AGAINST THE COURT AND REPORTERS & Judge strikes down Trump’s $15 billion suit against the New York Times 19SEP25

 NOT MY pres drumpf / trump is an idiot, and Judge Steven D Merryday just let him know drumpf's / trump's stupidity and ignorance is not going to be tolerated in his courtroom!!! The fight to defend our democratic Republic continues! From the Washington Post, but first this rage by drumpf / trump after the court ruling, from The Resistance....

Judge strikes down Trump’s $15 billion suit against the New York Times

Calling it “decidedly improper and impermissible,” Judge Steven D. Merryday slammed the 85-page complaint and said it could not stand.

Updated

September 19, 2025 at 12:37 p.m. EDTtoday at 12:37 p.m. EDT

A federal judge in Tampa struck down President Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, saying that the 85-page complaint was “decidedly improper and impermissible” under the rules governing civil proceedings in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, issued a scathing ruling on Friday, lambasting the president and his lawyers for the lawsuit.

“In this action, a prominent American citizen (perhaps the most prominent American citizen) alleges defamation by a prominent American newspaper publisher (perhaps the most prominent American newspaper publisher) and by several other corporate and natural persons,” he wrote. “Alleging only two simple counts of defamation, the complaint consumes eighty-five pages. Count I appears on page eighty, and Count II appears on page eighty-three.”

“We welcome the judge’s quick ruling, which recognized that the complaint was a political document rather than a serious legal filing,” a New York Times spokesperson wrote in a statement.

“President Trump will continue to hold the Fake News accountable through this powerhouse lawsuit against the New York Times, its reporters, and Penguin Random House, in accordance with the judge’s direction on logistics,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team wrote in a statement. The White House declined to comment.

In addition to the legal issues at hand, Merryday bemoaned the writing.

“The reader of the complaint must labor through allegations, such as ‘a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished ‘Gray Lady.' The reader must endure an allegation of ‘the desperate need to defame with a partisan spear rather than report with an authentic looking glass’ and an allegation that ‘the false narrative about ‘The Apprentice’ was just the tip of Defendants’ melting iceberg of falsehoods.’”

The judge said every lawyer should know that a complaint is not a “public forum for vituperation and invective” nor a “megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.”

The judge said a new complaint may be filed within 28 days and must be under 40 pages long.

By Scott Nover

Scott Nover is a media reporter for The Washington Post

How American ideals won in Qur'an burning controversy 1OKT10

FREEDOM won this battle because we have the freedom to speak out. We showed the world we stand for the freedom of religion AND free speech, that the two can exist and be practiced without violence. The nations who are promoting this restrictive resolution at the U.N. need to do some serious introspection and consider the lack of basic human rights in their own nations, and accept the International Declaration of Human Rights as passed by the U.N. 


Recently, anti-Muslim incidents in the United States sparked deadly protests in Afghanistan, marches in India and Indonesia, and the burning of Israeli and American flags in Iran and Pakistan. General Petraeus spoke out to remind Americans that actions here in the United States directly impact our ability to achieve our objectives overseas. His message was clear: the world is watching what we do. Fortunately, with the spotlight upon us, we have some positive lessons to share with the rest of the world about what an effective response to bigotry and hate speech looks like. And these lessons are particularly relevant as the UN General Assembly takes up again efforts to establish a global code against blasphemy.

 
  (Pakistani Muslims burn a US flag during a protest in Lahore on September 19, 2010, against earlier threats by US pastor Terry Jones to burn copies of the Muslim holy book, the Koran.)

For over a decade, Pakistan, Egypt and some other predominantly Muslim countries have successfully promoted resolutions at the United Nations which argue that it is necessary to criminalize anti-religious hate speech (or "defamation") in order to protect freedom of religion. It would be tempting to view recent anti-Muslim incidents as evidence of why such legislation is needed.
In reality, criminalizing speech damages rather than advances efforts to combat religious intolerance. Such laws are all too often abused to stifle debate and dissent and can have devastating consequences for those holding religious views that differ from the majority religion. Journalists, bloggers, teachers, students, poets, religious converts and other individuals have been targeted, charged and sentenced to prison or received other punishments simply for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

The response to the aborted Koran burning event demonstrates how non-legal measures can effectively and successfully confront and counteract hatred and intolerance.

For starters, America's leaders got this one right. They affirmed their commitment to tolerance and diversity and ultimately drowned out the hateful rhetoric of an isolated extremist. Political, religious, and other leaders, including President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, General David Petraeus, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and many others presented a clear message and a unified front against the Koran burning.
These high profile messages were joined by the voices of ordinary citizens and local political and religious leaders who successfully worked together to affirm religious solidarity. For example, in Gainesville, Florida more than 20 religious organizations united in hosting a series of interfaith events incorporating Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scriptures into worship services focused on peace and understanding. Members of the Gainesville community were also encouraged to attend a candlelight vigil and Iftar celebrations.

Their efforts ultimately led the Mayor of Gainesville to declare September 11th, the day of the planned Koran burning, as "Interfaith Solidarity Day" in the community. He also issued a statement condemning the "offensive behavior that has been directed at Muslim neighbors and those of the Islamic faith worldwide." Ultimately, they won. The planned "Burn a Koran Day" was cancelled.
Inspired by the success of efforts targeting the proposed Koran burning in Florida, communities and groups throughout the United States confronting similar anti-Muslim incidents have also united in opposition to intolerance.
Restricting speech is not the answer to fighting bigotry and hatred. What we need more of is condemnation of acts of hatred, as well as effective policies of inclusion, equality and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Instead of creating internationally binding obligations that aim to criminalize the "defamation of religions," politicians should confront hate speech and efforts to defame religions with the mightiest weapon in their arsenal--their voices.

Tad Stahnke is the Director of Policy and Programs at Human Rights First.