I never seriously doubted that, after his experience with Anita Hill’s testimony, Justice Thomas would look at Sullivan with a jaundiced eye.The issue seems to be how to preserve the freedom of speech while suppressing libel. It’s interesting that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are both enumerated separately, and also that pro-freedom of the press judgements tend to say that “money is speech.”
My own perspective is that “speech” is free - all you need is your mouth and a soap box, and the cost of a soap box is de minimus. “Presses,” OTOH, were things that not everyone could afford. Deliberate lying on a soapbox - slander - is bad . . .
“The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.” ― Alexander Hamilton. . . but deliberate lying via money spent on technology - libel - is worse.“Presses” were the product of “science and the useful arts.” And that is, strictly, true of web sites - and mimeograh machines and photocopiers, as well as radio and TV stations.
Since the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly include " To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries,” it’s clear to me that “freedom of the press” is properly read as covering products of " progress of science and useful arts” applied to the objective of the literal press - i.e., to the propagation of the opinions and beliefs of the owner (or renter) of a press.
That logic would justify classify the use of any technology to knowingly promote a lie the same - as libel. And it has to say that libel can certainly be perpetrated online by search engines classifying, for instance, Prager U. videos as pornographic. But posting slander to FR - knowingly lying on FR with evil intent - would be evil and would not, we all are confident, be knowingly condoned by Jim Robinson.
The “objective journalism” cartel knowingly - systematically and very powerfully - promotes falsehoods on a routine basis. It redefines words such as “objective” and “liberal” and “progressive” - yes, and “conservative” to make the articulation of patriotic (as the founders would have understood the term) thought. There just has to be a way of drawing a bright line between such, on the one hand, and this discussion (for example) on the other. Certainly it should be possible to do so without doing as much violence to “original intent” as Sullivan does.
- sophist
- 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
- philosopher
- O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
- philosophy
- A fondness or love for wisdom that leads to searches for it; hence, seeking a knowledge of the general principles of elements, powers, examples, and laws that are supported by facts and the existence of rational explanations about practical wisdom and knowledge.
I like that because it illustrates there are two "rights" of citizens at stake here: 1) Freedom of Public Discourse; and 2) Justice for someone hurting a person's Reputation.
And these rights go together hand and glove. For slander is the unjust use of free Public Discourse to harm a Person or group.
Exhibits. . .
Other slanderers unchecked: Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, Ford, NYTimes, Washington Post, CNN.