I made an edit at the end that clarified this. You absolutely can hinder a person's message if you continue to threaten them with financial ruin for saying it.
But 1) the speech must first take place, and 2) the burden of proof still lies with the person filing the lawsuit to prove that the speech was false, and caused harm.
Could've fooled anyone here.
I absolutely hate that critical thinking has degraded so much in our society that it has been replaced with this sort of binary thinking. I have not defended Trump. I have merely pointed out the fallacy regarding equating his statements on libel laws with fascism.
Back to my "if yes", then. Do you think this is pro-1A or anti-1A
I think it is ambivalent to the first amendment, because it has nothing to do with congress passing laws that suppress speech.