Replies

I sincerely hope the MSM is sued. Especially if they KNEW the longer video existed.
////////////////////////

In the camera phone era, all reporters and news organizations know that multiple videos exist. They also are obligated to interview the boy they are slandering and reporting his side of the story. This is what they call advocacy journalism and has been the modus operandi of the corporate/democrat media since the sixties. It is not journalism. It is bigotry, and what our President commonly refers to as FAKE NEWS!

They should be sued by the students, and the school regardless of the outcome or prospects of conviction and damages. It should be done through go fund me by the principals involved every time this happens

I sincerely hope the MSM is sued. Especially if they KNEW the longer video existed. - Tench_Coxe

I agree. That would be salutary.
OTOH what really should happen is that the Republican Party should sue the socks off of the Associated Press and its membership, and all other wire services and their customers, and the FEC and the FCC.
The objection to that is the idea that the New York Times v. Sullivan - being a unanimous SCOTUS decision - will forever make it hard for politicians to sue for libel. I challenge that, because if you read the Sullivan decision today, the case seems quaint. It is odd that the plaintiff was not even explicitly named in the (what he said was offending) publication. Odd that the complaint wasn’t about editorial content but an advertisement. And most especially, it was odd that the plaintiff was neither a Republican nor what would be recognized today as a conventional Democrat - he was a Southern Democrat.
The case was decided in 1964, by the Warren Court. The fact that southern Democrats were in bad odor nationally then has only gotten stronger today - openly racist southern Democrats have disappeared. And, in point of fact, the Party of Lincoln is not and never was openly racist. The point is that the Sullivan case did not raise the slightest hint that the SCOTUS ruling would have any different effect on Republicans than on Democrats. The ruling applies to Democrats and Republicans equally - in exactly the same sense that a law against sleeping under bridges applies to rich and poor alike. Rich people don’t need to sleep under bridges, poor people do. Democrats don’t get libeled, Republicans, all too routinely, are.
SCOTUS must be told that - and that domination of journalism by “the party of government” Democrats (or, equivalently, of Democrats by journalism) means that the objective of the First Amendment is defeated when the government protects journalistic malfeasance directed at opponents of Democrats. The objective of the First Amendment is to prevent the unification of the press and the state. It tries to do so by preventing the state from controlling journalism. But if journalism controls the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party controls the state . . .
Freedom of the press existed before the ratification of the Constitution, but was not absolute because the people had a right to sue for libel, and there were pornography laws. The meaning of the freedom of the press, therefore, was " freedom of the press as it was know, and limited, at the time the First Amendment was written.” Thus, under the Ninth Amendment, we still have the right to sue for libel. Even if we belong to a political party. I would even say especially if we belong to a party of limited government.
The fact that “the MSM” exists as an identifiable entity with an obvious political tendency constitutes an antitrust violation. The fact that the MSM is not objective means that the FEC is illegitimate, and other government agencies must avoid making decisions on the premise that it is objective. Including our universities.