Note the omissions: The statement isn’t tied to a named individual and doesn’t identify a defendant. Meaning, no one wants their reputation hanging on such a naked act of press intimidation. Bob Cusack, the Hill’s editor in chief, wasn’t available for an interview on why his publication would pass along the Breitbart threat.

AD

AD

“No legitimate news organization would ever threaten to sue another news organization for commenting on its content,” says Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a First Amendment lawyer with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Funny that Breitbart would identify itself as “pro-America” in a statement threatening suit over the characterization of its editorial tilt. There is nothing more American, after all, than people using colorful and hyperbolic language to describe media outlets. For example:

For example again:

More:

As for the substance of the matter, The Post’s David Weigel put it plainly: “[Breitbart] attracts self-described white supremacists with such headlines as ‘Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew.'”

AD

Would any such civil action have merit? Boutrous rules: No. Breitbart would be adjudged a “public figure,” meaning it would have a lot to prove in any defamation action. “It’s clearly just meant to be an intimidating threat to stop other from scrutinizing its activities.”

And another thing. Breitbart loves to brag about its global reach, as it did just last week: “Breitbart News Hits Record 240+ Million Pageviews, 37 Million Uniques in October.” This is one organization that needs no court of law to protect its reputation. “If it claims that it is false to call it a white nationalist website, they should explain in detail on the record why instead of threatening to bring a lawsuit,” notes Boutrous.

Boutrous, by the way, pledged to represent anyone sued by Donald Trump for exercising certain constitutional rights: