Around the world, libel laws are routinely used — I’d say “abused,” but the intent is clearly bad — to criminalize and stifle criticism. In many cases, the legal deck is stacked in favor of the plaintiff and the underlying truth of the offending claim is almost beside the point. And in the age of the Internet, it’s often possible for an offended party to shop the suit around for the plaintiff-friendliest jurisdiction. Ironically, given their history, Commonwealth countries have particularly bad libel laws.

In contrast, the United States is generally considered one of the least libel-friendly environments in the world (even accounting for some significant variation among the states). This is thanks both to our First Amendment and the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against libel, for which you should thank Alexander Hamilton (seriously, you should; it’s one of the man’s greatest accomplishments for liberty). But, as figures as diverse as Steven Novella and Mark Steyn will tell you, a determined plaintiff can still cost you “five years in court and a seven-figure sum for the privilege of learning whether one can say … in the United States.” As such, it’s not always necessary to win the case; often times, the mere threat will do, especially if the plaintiff has deep pockets.

Speaking of which, Donald Trump is also a critic of our libel system, but he thinks the problem is that it’s too hard to sue. To paraphrase the New York developer … on second thought, I’ll let him speak for himself. If nothing else, Trump very clear: