Replies

THE MEDIASNAKES NEED TO BE DECAPITATED FOR THE SAKE OF OUR NATION’S SURVIVAL!!!

There is a correct, constitutional way to do it. Understand, we all love us some First Amendment. That is a given, and I do not gainsay it at all. Period.
However. In 1964 the Warren Court gifted us with a stink-bomb interpretation of 1A. But the joker in 1A jurisprudence is that it is worded like the Second Amendment, referring in 1A to “the” freedom of speech and press, and in 2A to “the” RKBA.
In the case of 2A, Justice Scalia wrote the Heller decision - and his opinion ran for a great many pages, the product of deep historical research. He did not simply say “RKBA is absolute.” What he did say is that “the” RKBA preexisted 2A, but the preexisting RKBA was not absolute. On the one hand there was a RKBA before the ratification of 2A - and OTOH there were restrictions on it. No one would ever assert that 2A justifies a gun owner’s action if he shoots out the windows of a political he doesn’t approve of. That would be absurd.
But the same argument applies to 1A. In his 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, Justice Brennan asserted that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
The flaw in that logic is that “the” freedom of the press preexisted 1A - and both pornography laws and libel laws existed as well.

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
rejects the conceit that any right could be modified by the government without explicit constitutional sanction. Indeed the conceit that a right can be extinguished by constitutional amendment is actually disreputable. If something is “right” what business does anyone have assaying to extinguish it???
The Ninth Commandment reads,
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' Exod 20: 16.
The claim that the First Amendment weakens libel law is a claim that the Federalists (who didn’t want any controversy over rights at all, and were forced to promise a bill of rights by amendment) actually extinguished existing sanctions against lying about people either verbally or in print. There is no evidence that the Federalists wanted to do that in the first place - never mind that they fooled the populace by doing so and only the Warren Court could discern that meaning in 1A.
The Sullivan decision was unanimous, with enthusiastic concurrences. The Sullivan decision is nonetheless bad law, overturning all prior valid judicial precedent on the issue.