Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/09/2018 1:36:33 PM PDT by EyesOfTX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: EyesOfTX

you got that right. we true conservatives still have near zero real representation among the ruling elites in d.c. in many states too.


2 posted on 10/09/2018 1:40:54 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EyesOfTX

Get rid of homosexual marriage. That ruling alone is an insane reading of the constitution.


3 posted on 10/09/2018 3:22:02 PM PDT by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EyesOfTX

One of the most obscene aspects of our society is that the prospect of ending the murder of infants is deemed so reprehensible it is used as a scare tactic.


4 posted on 10/09/2018 3:32:51 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: EyesOfTX
(4) Use the First Amendment as a sword to require “fairness” in the left-dominated media.
Please.

The freedom . . . of the press is the right of the people to spend money on ink, paper and printing presses - or any more modern technology - to promote their own ideas and opinions.

The Constitution says nothing about “the right of the people to raise horses” - but who doubts that such a right exists?

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Still, who doubts that it is illegal to monopolize the breeding of horses? (not that I have any idea how that might be done, but bear with me).

In the same way, it is illegal to monopolize the press. Antonin Scalia pointed out that the first amendment doesn’t simply say, “freedom of the press,” it says "the freedom of the press.” Scalia explained that “freedom of the press” preexisted the First Amendment, but that freedom was not absolute. There were laws against libel. Consequently, “the” freedom of the press is freedom within accepted limits.

It is not necessary for conservatives to invade the First Amendment in order to limit the destructive tendencies of the press, we can start by attacking abuses. NY Times v. Sullivan encodes an abuse in that it makes it very difficult for a conservative to sue for libel. Theoretically, it also makes it difficult for “liberals” to sue for libel - as if they ever needed to.

It is easy to show that wire services in general, and the AP in particular, homogenize journalism. Adam Smith pointed out,          

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, Wealth of Nations (1776)
And the AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all major US journalism - which has been in continuous operation since before the Civil War. Consequently you have to be “naive as a babe to believe” that no “conspiracy against the public” has become embedded in our journalism. We see it all the time; we call it “the MSM.”

Cynicism is inherent in the claim of AP journalist to be objective by people who know that journalism is negative. And cynicism is a bias against conservatism.

A conservative SCOTUS should overturn NY Times v. Sullivan as inherently anti conservative - and it should hold the Associated Press and its membership guilty of violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. The wire services are an artifact of a time when telegraphy bandwidth was prohibitively expensive; it is now dirt cheap. The wire services are therefore not now “too big to fail."


5 posted on 10/09/2018 3:39:16 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (Journalism promotes itself - and promotes big government - by speaking ill of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson