Replies

I wish a class action suit could be filed against MSM for malpractice. There are malpractice suits file against doctors all the time.

Scalia argued his view on “textualism” was the ultimate defense of the First Amendment. In March 2012, an Associated Press report said he told an audience at Wesleyan University that the Court’s early justices would be “astonished that the notion of the Constitution changes to mean whatever each successive generation would like it to mean. … In fact, it would be not much use to have a First Amendment, for example, if the freedom of speech included only what some future generation wanted it to include. That would guarantee nothing at all.” That opinion didn’t prevent Scalia from harsh criticism of what is widely viewed as one of the essential court rulings protecting free speech and a free press — the 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. At the Newseum in the Aspen Institute 2011 Washington Ideas Forum, Scalia said the landmark ruling meant “you can libel public figures without liability so long as you are relying on some statement from a reliable source, whether it’s true or not. “Now the old libel law used to be (that) you’re responsible, you say something false that harms somebody’s reputation, we don’t care if it was told to you by nine bishops, you are liable,” Scalia said. “New York Times v. Sullivan just cast that aside because the Court thought in modern society, it’d be a good idea if the press could say a lot of stuff about public figures without having to worry. And that may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right it should have been adopted by the people. It should have been debated in the New York Legislature and the New York Legislature could have said, ‘Yes, we’re going to change our libel law.’” But 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.’”
JUSTICE SCALIA: THE 45 WORDS — AND ORIGINAL MEANING — OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
There is indeed something illegal about the MSM’s malpractice. It’s called “the law of libel.” As Justice Scalia asserted, the get-out-of-jail-free card of the MSM - known as the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - is illegitimate. Scalia observed that the First Amendment - the entire Bill of Rights - was a promise by the Federalists to the Antifederalists, and had to be crafted to meet demands for stipulation of rights on the one hand, and had to be noncontroversial enough to readily attain ratification. Accordingly, the only enumerated rights in the BoR were those which tyrants of history had proven inclined to violate. It was far from a comprehensive list, and the framers knew it. The Ninth Amendment covered the rest of the waterfront by stating,
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The fact that "the [existing, as limited by libel law and pornography prohibitions] freedom . . . of the press” is enumerated. does not invalidate the right to compensation for libel. The Sullivan case did not bring up the fact that the wire services had instituted continual virtual meetings among all major journalism institutions - and that that had long since produced what Adam Smith would have predicted, “a conspiracy against the public.” That object of that conspiracy has been precisely to usurp the title of "a reliable source” while turning the meaning of “objective” from its denotation to, “agreeing with the journalism cartel’s consensus.”
The remedy must be for Republicans to sue for libel, in the teeth of the Warren Court’s 9-0 Sullivan decision. And SCOTUS must require the “MSM” - under the title, “the Associated Press and its members” - to defend that suit on grounds of truth.