Federal judge warns 'dangerous' media has 'very close to one-party control' in blistering libel case dissent
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 3 years ago • 32 commentsBy: Joseph Wulfsohn (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
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.
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."
"The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions," said Silberman, who was nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan and has been a senior judge on the D.C. Circuit Court since 2000.
"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 Laurence Silberman is picutred March 31, 2005. (Getty Images)
He accused Silicon Valley of filtering news "in ways favorable to the Democratic Party" and fueling censorship, citing the suppression of the New York Post's bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential 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."
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.
"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."
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
Somebody get a case before the SCOTUS!
We're in danger of becoming a one party nation under authoritarian Democrat one party rule unless the people wake up and throw the bastards out in '22.
HR 1 doesn't axe voter ID laws. Try to keep up.
Gee, I wonder where the fuck Silberman was when the GOP was 'very close to one-party control of those institutions'. Can't find anywhere that he called for the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling to be revisited then.
And when in your imagination did THAT occur?
it's their imagination, so i'd imagine, whenever their imagination felt like it, or possibly at the beginning of Trump's term in our nation, or Trumps' Termination
I don't believe your comment has anything at all to do with mine.
???
and....
Since it isn't 'in my imagination', never.
Oh and BTFW, if it's been 'close to one party control' all along, WTF is the Judge whining about?
Then that makes this comment unnecessary and rather silly:
Well, at least the one word in your post makes some sense.
aren't you going to leave a post, on my article you finally understood?
Where and when have you posted an article?
What's the title?
sorry, i spelled the title of the article incorrectly. and.... should read an...., as i got confused with a, and, an the way i sometimes do
Do you remember what I asked? Here it is again:
If you could simply answer those two little questions, we might get somewhere, instead of rambling on about some article you may or may not have posted here or anywhere.
Or, you can just reply to whatever you dreamt I asked and I can skip it.
removed for context by charger
How so Tex? Is it your posit that Silberman called for the that case to be revisited in any prior ruling?
It always amuses me when paleo-conservatives try to pretend that facts have a political party.
Self-explanatory.
Which implies you've got nothing as usual.
no. it implies you just don't get it.
no problem!
It seems to me that the judge should have couched his dissent as a "liberal/conservative" issue rather than as a "Democrat/Republican" one. And besides, I believe that these days social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have more persuasive power than the mainstream press.
unfortunately, you are probably correct. Not many truly read up and obtain the Facts to stories they glimpse over, and go with the flow of their 'gang', as so often exampled on social media. Unab'e or unaware, incapable of educating ones self leaves despair , too lazy to research, or claim not the time to spare, tired of these pour excuses from the pitched Kool Aid and a bettin it ain't gonna be improving soon, yet, proven instantly day in and day out, put up and out to shout about what they know basically nothing, about.
Actually, he couched it as 'secular/religious', which IMNSHO is far worse for a Judge.
He wouldn't be one of those "activist" judges the right is always screaming their livers out about now is he?
IOKIYAR
It seems that the right views paleo-conservative Judges as defenders of a long gone 'status quo' while viewing all other Judges as 'radical leftists'. Those Judges that fail to rule based on party ideology light their hair on fire.
damn 80's hair spray ? or somethin bout Mary hair gel ?
Arsonists do tend to end up with 2nd degree burns from time to time.....
-gonna have to assume Not So Humbly, and , i'm not sure i've actually seen that used B 4, but being the uncultured sheltered na'ive picture of innocence, gone seriously astray, i feel as i should, could, or is it, must, mention, i will be borrowing that, cause just like an election, it can't be stolen here, though pretty close, and definitely something to be aware of, cause so many round here and abounding on social diseased media, were guaranteeing that our election was stolen, and from professors of this, line of thought crookedly applied and purchased for less, you have to just say GAWD damn the pusher men and women cultivating our insultin to wons who've lost their intelligence to stew in the pity they've chosen to allow their choices chosen as brains defrosting too expeditiously from frozen or half baked cake battered up mixed ingredients pre pitched mixin post haste irregardless of the adequate waste Bi-products produced to induced recipients while receiptless add to the less,ons ground to a halt. Progress, only proceeds when the funds are donated, and proceeds are then donated, cause IMNSMFHO , our country is in a world of shit, after watching those still in defense of the offensive, that is yet to be digested by me and as to what i see as the seriously vision impaired , leading more blind to unfind more unseens than obvious, till even the obscenes, aren't , but vision is for those who wish to be seerers of sight, not sightseerers of those so wrong, they're possibly never gonna be right, but, it is theirs, and they can have it, all, as silly little string is tough to see if dangled outta the light, but still won't/don't make it ok, but who gets to determine what is ok anymore, cause is any less still moving more ons than offten, i offten don't wonder, as i wind up lost and wind driven 3 sheets of acid to the wind, but it doesn't blow