Replies

Maybe it would be more effective to simply dust off those antitrust books and punish abuse rather than use tax rates to punish success.

I am flatly in favor of that . . as long as you are talking about antitrust violations by the journalism cartel.
The journalism cartel (aka “the media”) is the inevitable result (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.” - Adam Smith) of the continuous virtual meeting of all major journalists which the AP “wire” (and all other wire services) constitute. Which is precisely about business, and which has been ongoing since before the Civil War.
The 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan prevents Republicans from suing for libel, but before 1964 no court had ever held that 1A modified libel law at all. Why? Because intent of the Bill of Rights was not to change any existing right - at all - but to prevent changes in existing rights.
2A’s preservation of the existing RTKBA obviously did not touch your right not to be assaulted with a deadly weapon - and 1A’s preservation of the existing freedom of the press did not touch your right to sue for libel if you reputation was assaulted with, analogously, a deadly press. The Sullivan decision’s claim that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
is therefore flatly wrong.
Sullivan prevents both Democrat and Republican politicians from suing for libel - but “liberals” don’t get libeled.
Republicans must sue “the media,” and SCOTUS must issue a restraining order which will make “the media” as loathe to libel Republicans as they already are to libel “liberals."