Posted on 11/07/2019 12:15:06 PM PST by Starman417
Head in sand much?
Now you find the balls to get sassy. I knew I could pull you out of your funk.
What if??
That’s absolutely the case. One would have to be blind deaf and dumb to think otherwise.
What if there was a coup to overthrow the President and the media was behind it?As for the media- they’re simply a**holes. This is the biggest story arguably in the history of the country and no one other than Fox has the slightest interest in it.One wonders if they’ll cover the coming indictments.
. . . and what if a Warren Court decision enabled “the media” do do it?The Morrison v. Olson decision is now considered bad law, which is useless to cite as a precedent. And yet, but for Antonin Scalia, Morrison would have been a unanimous decision. Scalia wasn’t on the bench in 1964 when Justice Brennen, writing for a unanimous Warren Court, said that the First Amendment implies that public figures generally couldn’t sue for libel. Justice Scalia explained why that is wrong.
Scalia argued his view on “textualism” was the ultimate defense of the First Amendment. In March 2012, an Associated Press report said he told an audience at Wesleyan University that the Court’s early justices would be “astonished that the notion of the Constitution changes to mean whatever each successive generation would like it to mean. … In fact, it would be not much use to have a First Amendment, for example, if the freedom of speech included only what some future generation wanted it to include. That would guarantee nothing at all.”Justice Scalia explained thatThat opinion didn’t prevent Scalia from harsh criticism of what is widely viewed as one of the essential court rulings protecting free speech and a free press — the 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
At the Newseum in the Aspen Institute 2011 Washington Ideas Forum, Scalia said the landmark ruling meant “you can libel public figures without liability so long as you are relying on some statement from a reliable source, whether it’s true or not.
“Now the old libel law used to be (that) you’re responsible, you say something false that harms somebody’s reputation, we don’t care if it was told to you by nine bishops, you are liable,” Scalia said. “New York Times v. Sullivan just cast that aside because the Court thought in modern society, it’d be a good idea if the press could say a lot of stuff about public figures without having to worry. And that may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right it should have been adopted by the people. It should have been debated in the New York Legislature and the New York Legislature could have said, ‘Yes, we’re going to change our libel law.’”
But in Times v. Sullivan, Scalia said the Supreme Court, under Justice Earl Warren, “… simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”
JUSTICE SCALIA: THE 45 WORDS — AND ORIGINAL MEANING — OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
- the ninth and tenth amendments codify the position of the Federalists that a bill of rights was not without its problems - it would be impossible to codify all our rights, and would work mischief if some were enumerated, and others were not. Those amendments basically say that the Constitution is explicit in its grants of authority to Congress and the president, and the Constitution does not otherwise change any rights at all.
- The Second Amendment is explicit in referring to “the right of the people” as something the Constitution does not, and actually could not, affect. But the same is true of 1A, in the sense that it refers to "the freedom . . . of the press.” The point is that freedom of the press already existed, but that freedom was limited. And one of the limits on freedom of the press was the right to recompense if libeled - and the intent of neither 1A nor any other part of the Bill of Rights was to change any - repeat, any - right.
- Remember, the Constitution was on probation as long as the promised bill of rights was not delivered - states could have seceded very easily if a whiff of bad faith were detected. In that context you as a Federalist are very careful not to compromise anyone’s rights. Scalia concludes that Brennan’s - the Warren Court’s - claim that 1a required some change in someone’s rights was wrong.
In my quote from the link, I highlighted "a reliable source” which Sulivan allows reporters to rely on as defense from an accusation of libel. Who would be “a reliable” source? Who else but the Associated Press? But the AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all major news outlets - and as Adam Smith pointed out, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” The wire services have created “a conspiracy against the public” which has been in effect since memory of living man runneth not to the contrary. That conspiracy promotes its own influence and denigrates the competence of society:
“The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.” ― Alexander Hamilton
Support the right or not. Choose.
Remember the long ago story about the media panel in in 1987 called "Ethics In America?"
In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit? That's just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS' Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops.For the March 7 installment on battlefield ethics Ogletree set up a theoretical war between the North Kosanese and the U.S.-supported South Kosanese. At first Jennings responded: "If I was with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."
Wallace countered that other reporters, including himself, "would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover." Jennings' position bewildered Wallace: "I'm a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story."
"Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?" Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty...you're a reporter." This convinces Jennings, who concedes, "I think he's right too, I chickened out."
Ogletree turns to Brent Scrowcroft, now the National Security Adviser, who argues "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second." Wallace is mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by North Kosanese on American soldiers?" Retired General William Westmoreland then points out that "it would be repugnant to the American listening public to see on film an ambush of an American platoon by our national enemy."
So, now we have insurgents within the federal government conspiring to overthrow the administration elected by over 60 million Americans, and the media is not just sitting by to record the ambush, they are active conspiring with the insurgents to overthrow the government.
Journalists first, Americans second?
-PJ
Thank God the thread nanny is here to save us.
Were you in some danger?
Like almost everyone else on the forum, I’m just grateful you’re here to protect us. The danger, of course, is that someone might post something that slips past your all-knowing gaze.
God forbid someone click something you don’t want them to read.
I don’t think I’ve ever offered an opinion on what folks should or should not read.
You seem confused.
Note that the first 3 letters of the “whistleblower’s” last name are CIA.
Coincidence?
That's up to the site owner to decide, not you.
Then you have no interest. Take a walk.
But you do?
You’re not to ask questions, you’re to quit hassling the right.
Times are too serious to tolerate dross like you.
Yeah, I’ll get right on that boss.
You betcha.
I’m not your boss.
Man up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.