![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Evil-Grin.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Now a Federal judge has laid into the media in a dissenting court opinion. Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n A federal appeals court judge has offered a blistering dissent in an obscure\u00a0libel case that takes\u00a0the measure of the\u00a0mainstream media’s bias. <\/b><\/p>\n The case centers on a\u00a02018 report from Global Witness Publishing<\/a> that accused Liberian government officials\u00a0Christiana Tah and Randolph\u00a0McClain of accepting bribes from Exxon. Tah and McClain sued Global Witness alleging defamation and their claims were dismissed in Friday’s ruling.<\/b><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know anything about the case, however I suspect that the defendants used the Sullivan Decision<\/a> 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\u2019s 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<\/a>. It was ruled he wasn\u2019t a public figure. That\u2019s when the settlement checks began rolling in.<\/p>\n However, in the course of his partial dissent<\/a>, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman went on an unprecedented written tirade against the\u00a0press, in which he argued\u00a0that the Supreme Court should revisit the landmark 1964 <\/b>New York Times v. Sullivan<\/b><\/em> ruling that granted the media broad First Amendment protections from\u00a0being sued by public officials. <\/b><\/p>\n “[N]ew considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the <\/b>New York Times<\/b><\/em> decision (which I believe I have faithfully applied in my dissent) a threat to American Democracy,” he write.\u00a0“It must go.” <\/b><\/p>\n This is a big thing. When a judge recommends that the Supreme Court look at reversing one of it\u2019s earlier decisions, and one that has been referred to for decades by all the courts in nation, he must have some really serious concerns.<\/p>\n “Although the bias against the Republican Party\u2014not just controversial individuals\u2014is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the \u201970s,” Silberman wrote.\u00a0“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\u2014network and cable\u2014is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.” <\/b><\/p>\n 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)<\/p>\n They also actively suppressed the story on Dementia Joe\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n