In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat …The 1936 USSR constitution was commissioned by Stalin, and he always bragged “We do not have freedom of speech for the bourgeoisie”, so all “freedom of speech” in his dictatorship is freedom of the speech he approved of.
— The Principles of Communism
In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law:These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.
- freedom of speech;
- freedom of the press;
- freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
- freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
— 1936 USSR constitution, Article 125
Clearly, since - as I indicated - its “justification” is fatuous.The fact that it was a unanimous ruling with enthusiastic concurrences regretting it didn’t go further tells you all you need to know about the Warren Court.
Mr. Sullivan was a Democrat - a southern Democrat. The Warren Court was liberal. Its decision in Sullivan was nominally apolitical - but it was more like “bipartisan" between liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans.
The planted axiom in Sullivan is that “the press” is an amorphous category of actors independent of each other and of political party. In fact of course, all major journalists are, quite literally and openly, associated. The wire services - plural tho they be - constitute virtual meetings of their members/subscribers. As Adam Smith claimed in Wealth of Nations (1776),
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. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.such meetings - conducted not sporadically but continually over many generations - must have resulted, long since, in "a conspiracy against the public.”That conspiracy must, in the nature of journalism, operate in plain sight. I compare it to the NY Yankees and the Boston Red Socks. They compete fiercely within a context which they jointly and cooperatively created. The rules and the umpires and all that. Journalists may compete, but the context in which they are embedded serves them all, and disserves the public. Journalism profits from crisis - and so does government. For society, OTOH, crises are - well, crises. “The public interest” and “interesting the public” are in that sense opposites. And
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.government and society are opposites as well.Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one . . .the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.
The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest . . . — Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)Cooperatively, journalists promote journalism with the claim that “journalists are objective.” This is inherently false because objectivity is a (laudable) goal, not a state of being. Actually attempting to be objective is a counterintuitive exercise in which you assume that you are not objective, and attempt to see why that is so. Joining a mutual admiration society which will claim objectivity for you (and you for it) is the very opposite of actually trying to be objective. Instead, joining a mutual admiration society suppresses independent thought. A member of such a society must go along assiduously in order to get along. A journalist who questions the objectivity of the herd will be expelled with the universal declaration that he “is not a journalist, not objective.”
The “journalism is objective” con redefines “objective” to mean “going along with the journalism cartel.” It also redefines “liberal” and “progressive” - indeed, any political term with a positive connotation - to mean exactly the same thing. The term “objective” differs only in its usage - it is always applied to journalists and it is never applied to anyone else meeting the definition. “Liberal” (etc) on the other hand, is never applied to a journalist. Any “liberal” can get a job as a journalist and thereby be considered “objective” - but of course, he will no longer be called “liberal.”
“Conservatives” (you know, the people who believe in progress of, by, and for society) get libeled continually, and “liberals” do not get libeled. At all. The Sullivan decision is inhibits suits for libel, and is “fair” politically in the same way that a law against sleeping under bridges affects both rich and poor.
Overturn Sullivan - and rule the AP (et al) in violation of Sherman - and let the fur fly!
The raison d'être of the wire services was to conserve expensive telegraphy bandwidth in the dissemination of the news. In 2020 “expensive" telegraphy bandwidth is dirt cheap. Their “conspiracy against the public” is utterly unjustified.