Good day all. It’s no secret to anyone who’s paying attention that the so called “Main Stream Media” has stopped reporting actual news and started pushing what amounts to propaganda, all of it anti-American and pro-totalitarian. There have been a few “Journalists who have actively been trying to censor other news sites that don’t toe the Progressive line.
Now a Federal judge has laid into the media in a dissenting court opinion. Here are the details from Fox News:
A federal appeals court judge has offered a blistering dissent in an obscure libel case that takes the measure of the mainstream media’s bias.
The case centers on a 2018 report from Global Witness Publishing that accused Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain of accepting bribes from Exxon. Tah and McClain sued Global Witness alleging defamation and their claims were dismissed in Friday’s ruling.
I don’t know anything about the case, however I suspect that the defendants used the Sullivan Decision as a way to get the case dismissed. That misguided decision makes it impossible for a public figure to win a case against a newspaper or other media site when they ruin someone’s reputation with what turns out to be bad information. CNN and the Washington Compost tried to use Sullivan to get out from under the massive lawsuits brought against them by Nick Sandmann. It was ruled he wasn’t a public figure. That’s when the settlement checks began rolling in.
However, in the course of his partial dissent, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman went on an unprecedented written tirade against the press, in which he argued that the Supreme Court should revisit the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling that granted the media broad First Amendment protections from being sued by public officials.
“[N]ew considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the New York Times decision (which I believe I have faithfully applied in my dissent) a threat to American Democracy,” he write. “It must go.”
This is a big thing. When a judge recommends that the Supreme Court look at reversing one of it’s earlier decisions, and one that has been referred to for decades by all the courts in nation, he must have some really serious concerns.
“Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s,” Silberman wrote. “Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”
Judge Silberman also noted how Big Tech has been flat out censoring anything they disagree with, and has been actively closing down anyone who posts a dissenting opinion. We saw how Twitler, Googlag, Crab Apple and Amazon forced Parler offline for over a month, all because they had a rumor that President Trump might actually join them. (The lawsuits over this are underway)
They also actively suppressed the story on Dementia Joe’s junkie son, Hoovernose Biden just before the election. Polls taken after the election of real people who actually did vote for the Senile Pedophile stated that if they had seen these stories, they would not have voted for the Fake President. The numbers indicate that this would have increased the margin of fraud the CommuNazis would have needed to successfully steal the election.
“It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination ‘raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,'” Silberman said. “But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”
And that is what the Progressives are actively trying to do. Flat out suppression of the 1st Amendment with punishment of anyone who goes against the Progressive Liberal orthodoxy.
Silberman also sounded the alarm about the “serious efforts to muzzle” outlets like Fox News that aren’t under “Democratic Party ideological control.”
“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy,” the judge continued. “It may even give rise to countervailing extremism.
In other words, Judge Silberman has been actually paying attention and he fully understands that what the left is trying to do will lead to people, seeing no other means, to become just as extreme as the Progressive Liberal Left has become. (The Right will probably be a lot more competent at it too)
“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”
In other words, overturn Sullivan and let public figures sue media conglomerates into oblivion if they lie. Now you might be thinking that overturning Sullivan would actually suppress the 1st Amendment. No, it wouldn’t. It’s expected that the media is going to make mistakes and get and publish bad information. The “Honorable” companies, once it’s shown they made a mistake, will actively move to correct that mistake.
It’s those that aren’t “Honorable” that will be crushed, and frankly, they should be. I have no idea about this case or whether the plaintiffs can or will appeal the decision. Frankly, I think they should. If they do and the Supreme Court does rule to overturn the Sullivan decision, it will send shock waves through the boardrooms of the media conglomerates. In short order they will clean out the progressive propagandists and bring back actual reporters who “Report” the news, not tell you what to think. The alternative is not something we want to think about.
Thatisall
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
