If I were an eccentric billionaire (I’m already eccentric so I’m halfway there), I would assemble a top legal team to enable Tulsi Gabbard to sue Mitt Romney & the mainstream media for defamation for accusing her of treason. The former US representative is an Army Reserve officer who deployed twice to the Mideast. But under NY Times v Sullivan, a public figure must prove “actual malice.”

The purpose of this decision was to enable citizens to criticize government officials without fear of being sued. But Gabbard is not a government official. Besides, we got along nicely from 1776 to 1964 without it, and the UK does quite well while allowing defamation suits by the highest officials.

The decision needs to be reversed. It is unforgivable to allow a serving officer to be accused of treason, a death-penalty crime, with no evidence – and no repercussions. It make no sense for media to censor any opinions they dislike, while at the same time carrying accusations of heinous crimes against people they dislike. This sets up a media better suited to a dictatorship than to a republic. NY Times v Sullivan is not only unnecessary, it is counter-productive.

Choose one: A) Gabbard acts like a traitor. B) Romney acts like a jerk.