Replies

Thank you very much for launching a full-bore critique of my point. I need challenges such as yours to refine my opinion and attempts at persuasion.

Adam Smith did indeed publish that quote - the full quote is actually
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. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of Nations
over a century before the 1890 passage of the one-page (essentially) Sherman Anti-Trust Act. FTM, the AP predates Sherman by roughly 40 years (I’m not clear how the typewriter enters into the discussion, but whatever. Mark Twain was, I’m sure you know, financially supporting work on the development of the typewriter long after the Civil War).
In the post-Sherman milieu in which we live, trade shows and limited cooperation are SOP, but we also have an SEC mandated to keep the "conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices” phenomenon under control. And as " It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice" suggests, “~~a policeman’s~~ ^{_the SEC’s_} lot is not a happy one.” There’s no shortage of controversy over SEC action or inaction.
OTOH in the case of pre-1945 anticompetitive behavior by the AP, there is scant to no benefit to the public, or “coopetition” involved. But the anticompetitive behavior of the “objective journalism” cartel of which I complain is so effective that it has been the very air we breathe. I confess to have been taken in by it, to substantial extent, until I was nearing forty.
Long after that time, I was saying on FR that various news outlets were like the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. On one hand they are very competitive on the playing field. OTOH they cooperate most enthusiastically on hiring umpires, and when it comes to promoting the idea that the outcomes of the games actually matter. The comparison is IMHO apt. In that sense the wire service-mediated “objective journalism” cartel is like the MLB, and The New York Times is like the Yankees. The threat of being denoted “not a journalist, not objective” is a threat, not of ejection from a single game but of disqualification from playing at all. Ever.
In that sense a Rush Limbaugh is not on the baseball field at all, more like a soccer player. The game the “objective journalism” cartel plays is actually sophistry, and (perforce) the game of their antagonists is (in the etymological sense) philosophy. The Sophist claims superior wisdom, and if you allow them to get away with it, their argument will go, “I am wise and you are not. Therefore I am right and you lose the argument.” The Philosopher interrupts by saying, “I don’t claim to be wise, but I do love wisdom. Here are the facts and logic which seem to me to justify my claims and policy preferences. Spare me your claims of superiority - put up facts and logic in support of your claims and policy preferences.”
It is at this point that the issue of The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan comes into play. The “objective journalism” cartel is uniquely situated to devastate people by libeling them to the ruination of their reputation. I emphatically agree with Scalia’s point that Sullivan is bad law. Further, I assert that Sullivan empowers the Sophists in the “objective journalism” cartel, which is hostile to the very constitutional, limited government under whose aegis American courts all sit. Our philosophers desperately need the ability to force the sophists to drastically moderate their intemperate “fake news."
I agree that trade press is a different playing field entirely. When it comes to profit and loss, political correctness is a non-starter. It is not where I expect to see an AP byline. I don’t perceive much of a threat to your rice bowl in my attack on the AP (et. al.). Pundit tho you be, IMHO you are on the sidelines - and as a FReeper you are at liberty to join me.

I said, "It is at this point that the issue of The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan comes into play."

Under the unanimous 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Ruling by the Warren Court, the press is (politically speaking) all freedom and no responsibility. Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan asserted that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
But - surprising, but obviously true - the conceit that the First Amendment affected libel law at all was an entirely novel ruling in 1964.

The ratification of the Constitution was a close-run thing. It only was achieved by the Federalists after they answered the criticism of the Antifederalists that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights with a pledge to promptly insert one by amendment.

American rights, following English custom, were a matter of common law. That is, it was organic and, as such, no comprehensive listing of them existed then (or, FTM, now). Thus, assaying to compose such was a fool’s errand. But the Federalists solved the dilemma with Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That is a catchall which, by itself, would have included all the rights alluded to in the first eight amendments.
So what are the rights enumerated in first eight amendments actually? They are the rights which tyrants had historically denied. Thus, politically,the rights of most concern.

But - most obviously in the First and Second Amendments - the enumerated rights are not all precisely defined within the BoR. What is “the” freedom of the press? What is “the” right to keep and bear arms?

The RKBA not only means the right to have a gun, it means the right to have ammunition and, safely, to practice. But no one has suggested that the RKBA entails the right to shoot out the windows of your least favorite politician - let alone make an attempt on the lives of Steve Scalise and his baseball teammates. Writing for SCOTUS, Scalia did a lot of homework to produce the Heller decision. What did he research? “The” RKBA as it existed in 1788.

Likewise, “the” freedom of the press does not entail the unrestricted right to print porn. Who seriously thinks that 1A would not have been controversial - would have been at all certain of ratification - if it had been seen to have that effect? And the arbitrary destruction of peoples’ reputations - libel - was illegal in 1788 and remained so after the ratification of 1A. The meaning of “the” in both 1A and 2A obviously entails historical context.

So you knew all along that exercising rights entailed responsibilities, and neither 1A nor 2A change the fact that that is as true with a printing press as it is with a gun.
And you know that ". . . libel . . . must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment” - and the entire Sullivan decision as precedent against libel suits by (Republican, since Democrats don’t get libeled) officials - is balderdash.
The bullet points above follow from a Scalia speech I heard on youTube tho, unfortunately, I didn’t have the presence of mind to make a note of the link. But JUSTICE SCALIA: THE 45 WORDS
— AND ORIGINAL MEANING —
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
says in part that
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 don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”

On the New York Times vs. Sullivan case, I found a great story by Justice Clarence Thomas (February 2019.

SMGFan referenced an MSN/CNN link which is now a broken link.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3729004/posts

However, I found the The New York Times story on the same subject and it’s a good read.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/clarence-thomas-first-amendment-libel.html

I have an interest in this whole subject area, and before reading your comments in the last month, I was entirely unaware of the change of libel laws in 1964 (by the Warren Supreme Court) and its impact on what we are seeing played out in the Fake News scandering with impunity.

I would like to help produce an interactive webpage that will help educated FReepers by framing the issues and giving links.

Love to work with you and others on developing something like this.