Posted on 02/29/2016 7:27:33 AM PST by patlin
Sorry to be late to the party, but I somehow missed it back in early 16. I became interested in Scalias take on the Sullivan decision, and recently found (and posted) JUSTICE SCALIA: THE 45 WORDS AND ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT - another article covering very similar ground which also dates to February, 2016.I found this thread while searching for a video I saw in which Scalia explained why the First Amendment does not, and was intended not to, touch libel law. Scalias point was that the Constitution was ratified on the condition that a bill of rights would be added by amendment. And states might have very easily have withdrawn their ratification (i.e., seceded) while the word Constitution wasnt being capitalized because it was not a tradition.
So there the Federalists were, having a tenuous grip on their political desire - a strong federal government - and all they had to do was not mess up the Bill of Rights in order to keep it. In that situation, what you want to do is to find the least controversial way of expressing the rights of the people. You do not have an agenda to reduce anyones rights, you want everyone to agree that preservation of the status quo is being assured.
But the Federalists had left out any bill of rights in the text of the constitution for a valid reason - the rights of the people were basically common law, nowhere codified in any one place, or even a few places. Forced to create a Bill of Rights nevertheless, they included in it the
. . . and that wasnt the first amendment in the BoR, it was almost the last - meaning, that in no sense can the First Amendment be argued to override the Ninth Amendment.
- Ninth Amendment:
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
As to the language of the First Amendment, Scalia noted that it refers not simply to freedom of the press but to the freedom of the press. Point being, that freedom of the press as traditionally limited already existed. And it was that freedom - not unlimited freedom, but freedom constrained by pornography and libel restrictions - to which 1A refers. ". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment is therefore poppycock. Well, it would be - it was written by Justice William Brennan, and included in the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision. The First Amendment actually has no import WRT libel law. It is studiously silent about it. Therefore 9A prevails.
Brennans argument that 1A constrains libel law WRT libel suits by public figures begs the question as to why it permits a libel action if Joe Blow is libeled. Sullivan isnt interpretation of the Constitution, it is judge-made law.
So theres that. But there is another issue with the media:
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 its true or not.Heres the problem: just exactly who is "a reliable source? In practical terms that has been considered to be the journalistic consensus - The New York Times and the wire services. But now that the media has blown its cover, how can an honest judge take but I saw it in The New York Times seriously?Now the old libel law used to be (that) youre responsible, you say something false that harms somebodys reputation, we dont 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, itd 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, were 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 dont think thats a good idea anymore. JUSTICE SCALIA: THE 45 WORDS AND ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
The wire services are virtual meetings of all major journalism institutions - and Adam Smith was right to assert that 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 conspiracy against the public, I submit, is centered on the self-serving propaganda campaign to the effect that journalists are objective. Good events are, in general, long in planning and execution - and thus do not qualify as news. Journalism would make more fuss over a house burning down than a hundred houses being constructed. Journalism is therefore systematically negative towards society and naive towards its corrective institution, government.
This means that the claim that journalists are objective is not only fallacious but cynical - the suggestion being that negativity (what actually describes journalism) is objectivity. Journalists know that actually trying to be objective is a difficult discipline, and no fun. They also know that if they go along ideologically with other journalists, no journalists will complain that they are not objective - and if they do compete ideologically with other journalists, they may be condemned as not a journalist, not objective. The effect is herd behavior by journalists - and redefinition of the term objective to mean, in accord with journalisms ideological consensus.
And objective is far from the only word which journalists have redefined. Other words which have virtuous implications - liberal, progressive, moderate, and centrist have been redefined to mean what journalists have distorted objective into meaning. The only difference being in acceptable - to journalists - usage: objective is to be applied only to journalists, and never to non-journalists. And no other adjectives are ever to be applied to a journalist.
The redefinition of words is thus another, related, conspiracy against the public just as journalists are objective propaganda is. But since nobody gets labeled liberal by journalism unless they are in full go-along-and-get-along mode with journalism, liberals never get libeled.
The Sullivan decision comes from the position that the press is weak and beleaguered. The reality is that, because it functionally is a cartel, the press is the Establishment. As such, the press has exploited Sullivan to prevent the truth from prevailing over lies. The press reaction to the Kavanaugh hearing certainly should have told SCOTUS that.
Because wire services have inherent anticompetitiveness built in, and because the only justifiable" rationale of the wire service is to conserve expensive telegraphy bandwidth - wire services are an unacceptable violation of antitrust law. The expensive telegraphy bandwidth is, and long has been, dirt cheap. And nobody is a reliable source except a jury verdict. We wouldnt need trials if we could read the truth in the paper - and know it was the truth.
First, let me remark that your post dates back to before Trump won the nomination - and that I myself favored a different candidate myself back in Feb 16.But on the substance, "Trumps threat to change libel laws and ramp up law fare (using aggressive litigation to silence dissent) further serves the interests of the tyrannical left is imho incorrect. There was, and is, no real prospect of a legislative change in libel law. I agree with Scalia that the Warren Court was wrong in 64, and that Sullivan should and must be overturned. But legislatively? Bupkis is coming that way.
And law fare is precisely what is called for IMHO. The journalism cartel is the Establishment, and it needs to be sued into oblivion.
Thanks for the ping;.posts. Fascinating discussion. Just don’t let loved ones find you with a pillow/penumbra over your face. America’s robed mullahs have 600 ways to Sunday.
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.