I'm pretty sure misleading speech is still protected by the first amendment. The president is trying to throw his weight around because he thinks his fans will like it. He's an idiot.

>I'm pretty sure misleading speech is still protected by the first amendment.

Is it protected if you are challenging a UK company in the UK?

It sounds like it's in a US court.

> I'm pretty sure misleading speech is still protected by the first amendment.

It is, the government can not prevent or punish people speaking on the basis that the government decides it was misleading.

A civil dispute between private parties is entirely different though. One can be found liable for misleading speech that causes damage to another party.

> The president is trying to throw his weight around because he thinks his fans will like it. He's an idiot.

What damage? He's rich as fuck, and President of the United States!

I'm not aware of what damages Trump alleges in the suit or if it has any merit at all. Being rich does not mean there is no damage or disqualify a person from restitution though. And holding public office or a government job doesn't disqualify a person from protecting their private interests, although I imagine it could make the case a lot more complicated.

Aside, using civil courts to attack opponents is certainly a problem, but in USA it favors the speaker a compared to a lot of other countries. In US the plaintiff has to prove the speech is false and for public figures that there was malice. Which in my opinion goes a bit too far and gives media corporations more power over politicians and other public matters. I think the public figure stipulation is reasonable and important to allow private citizens to discuss politicians and public matters so that's good, but I think there should be a counter to that which requires organizations reporting the news to have more duty to report truth and not mislead.

BBC and Trump have similar fan bases. Both love getting lied to.