Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,780
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: − + + + + +
→Times v. Sullivan
In March 2021 [[D.C. Circuit]] Judge Laurence Silberman wrote in a dissent that he was “prompted to urge the overruling of ''New York Times v. Sullivan'',” and that "Two of the three most influential papers, ''The New York Times'' and ''[[The Washington Post]]'', are virtually [[Democratic Party]] broadsheets." In one footnote, Judge Silberman likened the precedent on libel to the [[Leonid Brezhnev|Brezhnev Doctrine]], named after the [[Soviet]] party boss who proclaimed as Judge Silberman paraphrased it, “once a country has turned [[communist]], it can never be allowed to go back.” Wrote Judge Silberman: “Apparently, maintaining a veneer of infallibility is more important than correcting fundamental missteps.”
In March 2021 [[D.C. Circuit]] Judge Laurence Silberman wrote in a dissent that he was “prompted to urge the overruling of ''New York Times v. Sullivan'',” and that "Two of the three most influential papers, ''The New York Times'' and ''[[The Washington Post]]'', are virtually [[Democratic Party]] broadsheets." In one footnote, Judge Silberman likened the precedent on libel to the [[Leonid Brezhnev|Brezhnev Doctrine]], named after the [[Soviet]] party boss who proclaimed as Judge Silberman paraphrased it, “once a country has turned [[communist]], it can never be allowed to go back.” Wrote Judge Silberman: “Apparently, maintaining a veneer of infallibility is more important than correcting fundamental missteps.”
Judge Silberman wrote that the ''Sullivan'' precedent has allowed the press “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” The “increased power of the press,” he warned, “is so dangerous today because we are very close to [[one-party control]] of these institutions.” He singled out the ''Washington Post'', the 'New York Times'', and [[National Public Radio]].
Judge Silberman wrote that the ''Sullivan'' precedent has allowed the press “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” The “increased power of the press,” he warned, “is so dangerous today because we are very close to [[one-party control]] of these institutions” and poses a threat to a "viable [[democracy]]." He singled out the ''Washington Post'', the 'New York Times'', and [[National Public Radio]].
The judge went on to accuse [[Silicon Valley]] and [[Big Tech|social media giants]] of helping perpetuate the liberal bias that is apparently so widespread in the news. Meanwhile, new conservative news networks that have launched in recent years have faced 'bans' or 'censorship' on [[social media]], Silberman argued.
"After observing my colleagues' efforts to stretch the actual malice rule like a rubber band, I am prompted to urge the overruling of New York Times v. Sullivan. [[Clarence Thomas|Justice Thomas]] has already persuasively demonstrated that ''New York Times'' was a policy-driven decision masquerading as [[constitutional law]]. As with the rest of the opinion, the actual malice requirement was simply cut from whole cloth. ''New York Times'' should be overruled on these grounds alone," Silberman said.
=== Modern ===
=== Modern ===