One of the many proposals that Donald Trump has made on the campaign trail is to change the libel laws in America. He wants to make it easier for him to sue papers like the New York Times when editors or columnists write something about him that he believes is false.

I can certainly understand why he and many other Americans would want to make it easier to sue reporters and columnists for libel. I can think back to many hurtful and inaccurate things that have been said about me or about ministries that are actually doing good things. I understand Trump’s desire to get back at those who throw insults and falsehoods while hiding behind the First Amendment.

But let’s get back to reality. Libel law in America sets a high bar, and we should be grateful that it does. We may not like what bloggers, reporters, and editorial boards write. But we shouldn’t change the laws. For a comment or story to be libelous, it must meet a three-part test. It must be false, defamatory, and published with actual malice.

Last month Kevin Williamson explained that Plaintiff Trump would have trouble proving libel in a court of law. Many of the things that Donald Trump claims are false are actually true and well documented. Truth is a good defense against libel. Many of the things written about Donald Trump are true, and he would never receive a judgment against a newspaper.

The second test would also pose a problem. Defamation of character can be proved, but it is much more difficult when an individual is not someone of good character. Calling Donald Trump a serial adulterer or frequent liar would not be defamatory since that is what many Americans already believe about him and his actions.

Donald Trump might want to change the laws, but most of us are grateful we have a First Amendment and libel laws that require a high burden of proof.