[polymuser]

I wish some pubs would challenge some rats to duels.

[Dacula]

From what I can tell there are only a few who are fighting this battle. I am ticked that my congresscritter - Jody Hice is not fighting at all.

[Pilgrim's Progress]

>>>?I wish some pubs would challenge some rats to duels.<<<

I’d be happy enough to see them start carrying walking canes again and use them for purposes other than originally intended.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I wish some pubs would challenge some rats to duels.

That is the natural result of SCOTUS denying Republicans the right to legally establish facts via libel suit.

And that was the effect of the Warren Court’s 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision. That decision nominally doesn’t discriminate between parties - but the journalism cartel does. Democrats don’t get libeled, Republicans routinely do. In Sullivan Justice Brennan claimed that

". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”

But as Scalia noted, the First Amendment - indeed, the entire Bill of Rights - was designed to assure the Constitution’s critics that the Constitution not only did not diminish any right then extant, but prohibited anyone to do so without passing a constitutional amendment. “the” freedom of the press is freedom of the press as it existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution - freedom within the established limits of pornography law and the right of the people to sue for libel.

The Bill of Rights was not intended, or understood, to change libel rights or any other rights. ". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment” is therefore sheer nonsense.