[thinden]

There are people in CNN who are hired to lie and protect Obama and his friend Hillary.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

don't stop at CNN

every MSM outlet has people on the payroll protecting hildabeast & barak hussein bin soetoro.

can't wait to see MSM names show up on perkins coie bank records that have been subpoenaed in Fusion GPS matter.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

There are people in CNN who are hired to lie and protect Obama and his friend Hillary. - FreedBird

don't stop at CNN

every MSM outlet has people on the payroll protecting hildabeast & barak hussein bin soetoro.

In its 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision SCOTUS, by making it essentially impossible for Republicans to sue for libel, claimed to be enforcing the First Amendment. And might actually have believed it.

They didn’t say that it applied only to Republicans, of course - but although Mr. Sullivan was neither a Republican nor a Democrat (at least, not a Democrat in good odor - he was a southern Democrat), in practical terms Democrats don’t need to sue for libel, and Republicans frequently do.

It is said that “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.” But when Republicans can’t sue for libel no matter how egregious, de facto Democrats are entitled to their own facts. The intent of the First Amendment is, as Chairman Mao eloquently put it, to “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred thoughts contend.” But the intention of pseudo-objective wire-service journalism and the Democrat Party is to aggressively monopolize the expression of facts and opinion.

And the Sullivan decision empowers them in that endeavor. Sullivan must either be overturned (unanimous decision or not) or otherwise made moot.