RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Biden administration opposes the 1st amendment

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 62934
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/21 8:01 pm    ::: Biden administration opposes the 1st amendment Reply Reply with quote

https://reason.com/2021/03/08/biden-justice-department-sides-against-free-speech-advocates-in-big-first-amendment-case/

Quote:
The Biden Justice Department is now asking the Supreme Court to undo B.L.'s sweeping First Amendment victory at the 3rd Circuit. "The court of appeals incorrectly held that off-campus student speech is categorically immune from discipline by public-school officials," the government argued in a friend of the court brief filed in support of the Mahanoy Area School District.



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13620
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/21 8:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Now, now....THAT title is misleading. Razz

They're not opposing the First Amendment, but wanting to shift its interpretation a bit.

That school district isn't far from where I live, and in the heart of PA's Trump Country, for what that's worth. Why shouldn't the kid be allowed to be profane and vulgar about her school? 70-some million people voted for a president who was the epitome of crassness.

Call me old-fashioned -- I think her PARENTS should be bitch-slapped into next Friday for not disciplining her themselves.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6886
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/17/21 3:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Why shouldn't the kid be allowed to be profane and vulgar about her school?


So you're disagreeing with the Biden administration's totalitarian attempt to constrict a student's First Amendment free speech rights. Good for you!
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 20862



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/17/21 5:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Don’t know this issue yet but I can speak in general terms.

So we basically aren’t going to have the truth about the Biden administration welcome on Rebkell’s? If I were in my prime as a poster I would be painting this entire forum with threads exposing the INCREDIBLE hypocrisy that is prevailing, at the moment, in the press, social media, and here, that is serving to protect Joe Biden and the Democrats.

Trump was one kind of threat to democracy. This, however, is the predominant affront to democracy in America. If the press would just go after Biden as hard as they went after Trump, and the reasons and material for them to do so abound, and we held THIS administration’s feet to the fire, we could actually possibly turn some things around in favor of the American people.

And possibly mitigate the possibility of another Trump, maybe LITERALLY another Trump, winning the White House.

Instead, we can’t go after Biden. Because he is the answer to Trump and the Democrats are the opposers of the Republicans. Get it? So it’s hands off and we the People are the losers. But at least he’s not Trump! Rolling Eyes



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13620
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/17/21 6:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Howee wrote:
Why shouldn't the kid be allowed to be profane and vulgar about her school?


So you're disagreeing with the Biden administration's totalitarian attempt to constrict a student's First Amendment free speech rights. Good for you!


Absolutely. And while she's at it, I hope she flashes her boobs 'n cootchie, too. I mean, "Fuck You!"....? Why not just DO The Real Thing on Tiktok, 'n stream it live into her school. Free Speech is....FREEDOM! Cool

jammerbirdi wrote:
Instead, we can’t go after Biden. Because he is the answer to Trump and the Democrats are the opposers of the Republicans. Get it? So it’s hands off and we the People are the losers. But at least he’s not Trump! Rolling Eyes

Who told you THAT?? There are plenty of detractors out there, and they're quite vociferous about it.

But yaa -- he's NOT Trump! It's so refreshing, even relaxing, to not have every news cycle dominated by the Orange Megalomaniac Bloviator and his sycophants. Laughing



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18948



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/17/21 6:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Don’t know this issue yet but I can speak in general terms.

So we basically aren’t going to have the truth about the Biden administration welcome on Rebkell’s? If I were in my prime as a poster I would be painting this entire forum with threads exposing the INCREDIBLE hypocrisy that is prevailing, at the moment, in the press, social media, and here, that is serving to protect Joe Biden and the Democrats.



Laughing

The press was easy on Trump considering the bullshit he pulled. And their love affair with him was the reason we got him for four years, and our country is in shambles because of it.

Constitutional rights aren't absolute. Freedom of Speech has always been regulated, and is even more regulated in public schools. Biden's position was the precedent until recently. Students should not have the ability to say whatever they want, free of consequences. We all intuitively know this.

That being said, social media made outside of school is tricky. My gut says students shouldn't be punished for it - but I also recognize because I work in a school, that the ability to punish this has literally led to saving lives - and anything posted on social media outside of school, inevitably is brought inside of school.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
DivaORcat16



Joined: 13 May 2020
Posts: 25



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/19/21 10:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Did this girl post her school's name? I didn't see that information in the link to the story. She is expressing her personal opinion. If she wasn't naming names, that seems extreme to suspend her from the team.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13620
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/19/21 3:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

DivaORcat16 wrote:
Did this girl post her school's name? I didn't see that information in the link to the story. She is expressing her personal opinion. If she wasn't naming names, that seems extreme to suspend her from the team.


Hmmm. Let's shift gears slightly. IFF she were a star athlete and earned her way onto a collegiate team, ANDD she posted such a thing directed at her school, should her college coach be allowed to take disciplinary action, such as banning her from the team?

Orrr....if she accepted a job somewhere, and then did such things on her social media with direct implications about her job/boss, might they not be entitled to legally fire her?

"Free Speech" does have consequences....good OR bad. I didn't see anything about anyone taking her "freedom" to post on social media, or limiting her "free speech" in any way. But I DID see an appropriate consequence for her vulgar, school-directed posting.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
DivaORcat16



Joined: 13 May 2020
Posts: 25



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/19/21 7:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think you also mentioned bitch-slapping the parents. I do agree with consequences and I would LOVE to see more parents held accountable for their children (speaking as a Mom with 2 children in their 20's) and their behavior.

I didn't say I agreed with her behavior. I would be the first one on my kid's if they pulled something like that. I just said I think she has the RIGHT to say it.

BUT, all the cancel culture B.S. is going too far. People DO change. Not always for the better. Everything seems to be recorded nowadays which ads to the problem.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13620
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/19/21 8:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

DivaORcat16 wrote:
BUT, all the cancel culture B.S. is going too far. People DO change. Not always for the better. Everything seems to be recorded nowadays which ads to the problem.


Really. I mean, a kid like this has no clue about how this (now-indelibly etched) episode will haunt her on future job interviews, etc. Employers are just one category of people who have "free access" to all our "free speech". And they CAN and DO use it against you. Shocked



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"


Last edited by Howee on 03/19/21 11:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8480



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/19/21 11:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:

So we basically aren’t going to have the truth about the Biden administration welcome on Rebkell’s? If I were in my prime as a poster I would be painting this entire forum with threads exposing the INCREDIBLE hypocrisy that is prevailing, at the moment, in the press, social media, and here, that is serving to protect Joe Biden and the Democrats.


Trump got the press to out themselves. As Matt Taibbi puts it, they went from "phony 'objectivity' to one one-party orthodoxy". You could argue that they aren't doing anything that FoxNews doesn't do for Republicans, but "everything but FoxNews" is much bigger. We already have MSNBC to act as a counterpart to FoxNews.


Matt Taibbi: The Sovietization of the American Press

Quote:
But it’s hard to know what much of it means, because coverage of Biden increasingly resembles official press releases, often featuring embarrassing, Soviet-style contortions.


J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6170



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/19/21 11:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I thought on snap chat you could only post to people you wanted to have see it and that the post disappeared after a certain amount a time, so it isn't the same as putting it out in a public space like twitter where anyone could read it.

Wouldn't that be closer to the technilogical version of having a private conversation overheard at a restaurant and reported back to the source?


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6886
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/20/21 4:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

J-Spoon wrote:
I thought on snap chat you could only post to people you wanted to have see it and that the post disappeared after a certain amount a time, so it isn't the same as putting it out in a public space like twitter where anyone could read it.

Wouldn't that be closer to the technilogical version of having a private conversation overheard at a restaurant and reported back to the source?


I think you're close.

Here is the summary statement of facts from the student's (called "B.L." to preserve privacy) legal brief in the Supreme Court:

Quote:
This case stems from a momentary expression of frustration, voiced by a disappointed student, B.L., on a weekend, far from school, on Snapchat, a medium designed for temporary, self-deleting messages. After failing to make the varsity cheerleading team, and while shopping with her friend, B.L. typed a message, which disappeared in 24 hours, that read “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” The message did not identify any particular school or any official associated with the school. It did not cause any disruption at the school. But when another student took a screenshot of the message to preserve it and showed it to her mother, a cheerleading team coach, the school suspended B.L. from the [junior varsity] team for the year.


The Biden administration butted into the case at the Supreme Court level with a so-called amicus brief supporting the school discipline. They claim they have an interest in doing so because the federal government runs hundreds of primary and secondary schools in the military and on Indian reservations, and it wants to be able to punish such off-campus social media student speech behavior in those schools.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13620
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/20/21 5:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Trump got the press to out themselves. As Matt Taibbi puts it, they went from "phony 'objectivity' to one one-party orthodoxy". You could argue that they aren't doing anything that FoxNews doesn't do for Republicans, but "everything but FoxNews" is much bigger. We already have MSNBC to act as a counterpart to FoxNews.

Matt Taibbi: The Sovietization of the American Press


Yaaa, I think Matt (and you!) are trying a little too hard. Wink Razz

Quote:
Some of the headlines in the U.S. press lately sound suspiciously like this kind of work:
— Biden stimulus showers money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty
— Champion of the middle class comes to the aid of the poor
— Biden's historic victory for America


I mean....THESE are offensive?? Rolling Eyes A bit smarmy, maybe. But these kinds of headlines have emanated from the press for many decades, during many of our lowest periods. (WWs, Depression, etc.) Ironic, but those are EXACTLY the type of headlines Trump craved and demanded.

Quote:
It doesn’t take much looking to find comedians like James Adomian and Anthony Atamaniuk ab-libbing riffs on Biden with ease. He checks almost every box as a comic subject, saying inappropriate things, engaging in wacky Inspector Clouseau-style physical stunts (like biting his wife’s finger), and switching back and forth between outbursts of splenetic certainty and total cluelessness. The parody doesn’t even have to be mean — you could make it endearing cluelessness. But to say nothing’s there to work with is bananas.


Oh, they HAVE, and they will continue to do so. Laughing But that's the delightful thing: they'll have to mock his stutter, or bumbly-ness, or whatever -- NOT his egomaniacal, self-aggrandizing and lying ways, as was the case with Trump. I remember 9 years ago, when Trump was first a candidate in the GOP primary that Romney won; Jon Stewart was one of the first I saw to satirically salivate over what ABUNDANT material the comics were going to have. He did not disappoint! Razz



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 20862



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/20/21 10:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

My God Howee have you ever even listened to Chris Hedges? I’ve been holding back asking you that for months. You can’t possibly be watching him on YouTube making the assertions HE MAKES about the Democratic Party, the press, the New York Times, and then come here and argue endlessly and SO condescendingly with people saying exactly what Chris Hedges is saying and has been saying for years.

What!

I can’t even.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13620
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/20/21 11:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
My God Howee have you ever even listened to Chris Hedges? You can’t possibly be watching him on YouTube making the assertions HE MAKES about the Democratic Party, the press, the New York Times, and then come here and argue endlessly and SO condescendingly with people saying exactly what Chris Hedges is saying and has been saying for years.


Yep. I have listened to him. Often.

#1. I do not argue "endlessly" nor "condescendingly" on this point. That's your take on my 'style', maybe? Why do you see it as "condescending" when it's just purely about counterpoint?

#2. I have heard Chris explain how "The Media" is deficient/partial/propagandist, etc. I get that -- and believe it. But the oversimplification in contrasting of The Media Under Trump vs. The Media Under Biden as radically different, without adequately explaining the obvious reasons for that, is something I find spurious. To say its suddenly become Soviet-esque is just a far reach, imo.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8480



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/21/21 8:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Biden gets parodied by Kyle Dunnigan:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wgC8dFmhyJQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-_p287UVkEw" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This video refers to Musk naming his son with his most recent wife X Æ A-12 . But the state of California didn't allow digits so it was changed to X Æ A-Xii .

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/csJfkxRf_Xg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>




Last edited by tfan on 03/22/21 12:07 am; edited 2 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8480



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/21/21 9:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
Trump got the press to out themselves. As Matt Taibbi puts it, they went from "phony 'objectivity' to one one-party orthodoxy". You could argue that they aren't doing anything that FoxNews doesn't do for Republicans, but "everything but FoxNews" is much bigger. We already have MSNBC to act as a counterpart to FoxNews.

Matt Taibbi: The Sovietization of the American Press


Yaaa, I think Matt (and you!) are trying a little too hard. Wink Razz

Quote:
Some of the headlines in the U.S. press lately sound suspiciously like this kind of work:
— Biden stimulus showers money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty
— Champion of the middle class comes to the aid of the poor
— Biden's historic victory for America


I mean....THESE are offensive?? Rolling Eyes A bit smarmy, maybe. But these kinds of headlines have emanated from the press for many decades, during many of our lowest periods. (WWs, Depression, etc.) Ironic, but those are EXACTLY the type of headlines Trump craved and demanded.


It is unlikely that adoring complimentary headlines would be written for a Republican president (outside of FoxNews.com). His point is that they reflect partisanship. And the press is supposed to be non-partisan. But that said, a lot of opinion pieces/shows are being substituted where news used to be and their headlines can be (and are) partisan.

What you didn't address from the article is that for the exact same non-action - failing to punish Saudi Arabia for killing Khashoggi - the press had a much different reaction to Trump's non-action versus Biden's non-action. And they didn't try and justify that by saying that things were different now for Biden since the killing took place in October 2018. That is the same partisanship that people in the Democratic corporate media would condemn FoxNews for.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13620
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/22/21 9:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
What you didn't address from the article is that for the exact same non-action - failing to punish Saudi Arabia for killing Khashoggi - the press had a much different reaction to Trump's non-action versus Biden's non-action. And they didn't try and justify that by saying that things were different now for Biden since the killing took place in October 2018. That is the same partisanship that people in the Democratic corporate media would condemn FoxNews for.

I do believe you're not looking hard enough:

https://apnews.com/article/biden-retreats-saudi-arabia-sanctions-khashoggi-killing-d91d31edece5db07112d1c2d4dd3be33

https://www.vox.com/22307196/joe-biden-saudi-arabia-mbs-iran-deal

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-03-02/biden-response-khashoggi-report-angers-saudi-arabia-and-critics



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8480



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/21 9:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The proper term is now "Biden-Harris administration".


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8480



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/21 12:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
What you didn't address from the article is that for the exact same non-action - failing to punish Saudi Arabia for killing Khashoggi - the press had a much different reaction to Trump's non-action versus Biden's non-action. And they didn't try and justify that by saying that things were different now for Biden since the killing took place in October 2018. That is the same partisanship that people in the Democratic corporate media would condemn FoxNews for.

I do believe you're not looking hard enough:

1) An Opinion piece ("Analysis:") https://apnews.com/article/biden-retreats-saudi-arabia-sanctions-khashoggi-killing-d91d31edece5db07112d1c2d4dd3be33

2) https://www.vox.com/22307196/joe-biden-saudi-arabia-mbs-iran-deal

3) https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-03-02/biden-response-khashoggi-report-angers-saudi-arabia-and-critics


Looks to me like, if anything, they support Taibbi's point in the press going easier on Biden than Trump. At least the New York Times article on Trump. The Politico article he linked to wasn't that bad. The Washington Post article was behind a paywall so I don't know what that said.

All three articles linked above do point out that Biden claimed in the campaign that he would punish Saudi Arabia for the murder of Khashoggi. The second even quotes his statements in an interview (,"in fact", must be a tell of his) But all three articles provide reasons/excuses for why he would do that. There are some quotes from people who are unhappy and criticize the policy, but I would not label any of the articles as overall critical of Biden. They look, at best, to be neutral on the issue. These are some of the justification/favorable-to-the-change parts:

1) "But when it came time to actually punish Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Biden’s perception of America’s strategic interests prevailed."

Ned Price (State Department) and Mark Warner (Senator) are both quoted giving reasons why we should not punish Saudi Arabia.

2) "Initial plans and promises made during a campaign rarely survive once you’re actually governing."

Ned Price again, as well as Kirsten Fontenrose and Jen Psaki are quoted giving reasons for why Biden did not/should not punish Saudi Arabia.

3) "But it also underscores the realpolitik facing Biden and the difficult question of how to deal with a figure almost certain to become the leader of a longtime Middle Eastern ally. The U.S. continues to count on Saudi Arabia as a bulwark ..."

Ned Price again referenced: "saying the administration sought to retain the influence to “shape” the Saudi government’s choices."




Last edited by tfan on 03/26/21 12:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13620
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/21 12:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Laughing

I'll try to help you here.

Quote:
Matt Taibbi: The Sovietization of the American Press

....oughtta look something like THIS:

"Joe Biden has taken a welcome reversal in his policies on Saudi Arabia in relation to their role in the unfortunate disappearance of the dissident, radical extremist journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. In light of recent investigations, President Biden has learned that indeed, it was NOT the Saudi government's doing at all. It was the most likely the work of disgruntled Turks who had taken umbrage with Mr. Khashoggi's vocal dissidence.

The president intends to fully resume relations with the Saudis, in light of their long and mutually beneficial history of human rights advocacy; this is not at all related to the petroleum industry or weapon sales."

This IS NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING. (yet). Try not to get too triggered by buzzwords like "Sovietization". Wink



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 8480



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/21 1:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Laughing

I'll try to help you here.

Quote:
Matt Taibbi: The Sovietization of the American Press

....oughtta look something like THIS:

"Joe Biden has taken a welcome reversal in his policies on Saudi Arabia in relation to their role in the unfortunate disappearance of the dissident, radical extremist journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. In light of recent investigations, President Biden has learned that indeed, it was NOT the Saudi government's doing at all. It was the most likely the work of disgruntled Turks who had taken umbrage with Mr. Khashoggi's vocal dissidence.

The president intends to fully resume relations with the Saudis, in light of their long and mutually beneficial history of human rights advocacy; this is not at all related to the petroleum industry or weapon sales."

This IS NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING. (yet). Try not to get too triggered by buzzwords like "Sovietization". Wink


The issue I raised was if the press and pundits covered Trump and Biden failing to punish Saudi Arabia differently - reflecting press partisanship. Not whether the press reported and pundits commented on Biden's cave like the Soviet press would have. But Trump was uniquely hated by the press and pundits, so that is always a potential reason for why they acted unequally between him and Biden. But I suspect that Taibbi is right and Trump has caused:

Quote:
The transformation from phony "objectivity" to open one-party orthodoxy ...


But "one-party" is probably too broad as I think the corporate press/punditry showed bias against Bernie Sanders and would be against other popular candidates advocating non donor class positions. The punditry is giving opinions so can be biased. But there is bias on selecting/not selecting whch of the punditry to publish or televise.




Last edited by tfan on 03/26/21 7:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6886
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/21 5:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

"Sovietization" could mean a lot of things. What I think Taibbi means is that the vast majority of the mainstream media (and social media) is run like a one party state -- that is, the media select, write and edit content that favors the Democrat party and is highly negative toward the Republican party, its positions and its politicians.

This obvious truism was blasted recently by Senior Circuit Judge Lawrence Silberman in an bluntly worded dissent that is highly unusual for a federal judge. His point is that the Supreme Court's New York Times libel precedent, requiring "actual malice" for a public figure to win a libel case, has resulted in abusive and unchecked political power being wielded by the media, a power that is almost always wielded against the Republican party and its politicians and in favor of the Democrat party. For this reason, Silberman urges the Supreme Court to overrule the Times case, thereby easing the burden of proving media libel and slander.

I will quote at length from his dissent for anyone interested in this issue or powerful rhetoric. I have deleted legal citations, edited out some sentences and made one [bracketed] clarification at the end.

***

"SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: . . . .

"In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan . . . the Supreme Court set forth the well-known rule that, to hold a defendant liable for defaming a public figure, plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with “actual malice.” . . . That is, with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. . . .

"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. 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. . . .

". . . . There can be no doubt that the New York Times case has increased the power of the media. . . .

"As the case has subsequently been interpreted, it allows the press to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity. It would be one thing if this were a two-sided phenomenon. . . . But see Suzanne Garment, The Culture of Mistrust in American Politics 74–75, 81–82 (1992) (noting that the press more often manufactures scandals involving political conservatives). The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. . . . It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat.

"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. (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). 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.

"As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party. . . .

". . . . 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.

"To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content-based censorship.

"There can be little question that the overwhelming uniformity of news bias in the United States has an enormous political impact. That was empirically and persuasively demonstrated in Tim Groseclose’s insightful book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind (2011). Professor Groseclose showed that media bias is significantly to the left. . . . And this distorted market has the effect, according to Groseclose, of aiding Democratic Party candidates by 8–10% in the typical election. . . . And now, a decade after this book’s publication, the press and media do not even pretend to be neutral news services.

"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. 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 [namely, the Times case actual malice rule] that serve only to enhance the press’ power."
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin