Trump Sues NYT For 'Emotional Distress' Caused By Facts

A former President, renowned for his robust public persona, has reportedly initiated legal proceedings against the venerable New York Times, citing profound emotional distress. The alleged source of this unprecedented suffering? An unyielding barrage of what the publication obstinately refers to as "facts." It appears that the former Commander-in-Chief finds the relentless pursuit of verifiable information to be a deeply personal and, one presumes, rather tiresome affront.

Legal scholars are now scrambling to understand this novel frontier in jurisprudence. Does this landmark case suggest a new right to be shielded from uncomfortable realities, particularly when one's own actions form the basis of said realities? The case promises to redefine journalistic ethics, perhaps requiring a strict adherence to 'feel-good' narratives over the more traditional, yet apparently hurtful, 'truth.' One can only imagine the impact on the First Amendment should facts be officially deemed injurious.

Should the former President, Donald Trump, prevail, it could set a revolutionary precedent, allowing any public figure to claim damages whenever their carefully constructed narratives clash with pesky evidence. The very concept of journalism may soon require a trigger warning for objective reality.