Process used everyday by the leftist media:
They’ll publish either an outright lie or publish a statement that comes really close to becoming a lie.
They know their statement will be picked up by other leftist media organs, amplified and published. This is what happened to Prager.
The originating media may publish a retraction. But only after their buddies have run with the original statement. This is also what happened the Prager.
They know their statement will be picked up by other leftist media organs, amplified and published. This is what happened to Prager.
The originating media may publish a retraction. But only after their buddies have run with the original statement. This is also what happened the Prager.
The 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Warren Court decision asserted that". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”. . . and on that rationale promulgated rules which shut down Republican suits for libel. I say “Republican” suits for libel, but of course Sullivan does not say that. It would (theoretically) apply equally to Democrat suits for libel if “liberals" ever needed to sue for libel. Which, because “liberals” assiduously go along and get along with journalism, they never do.Conservative commentators tend to go along with Sullivan for fear that if it were overturned they would find themselves sued into bankruptcy by Democrat politicians. As well as ignorance, presumably, of the fact that the original intent of the ratification of the Bill of Rights was to prevent changes to unenumerated rights such as the right to sue for libel.
There should be a solution which would allow conservative libel suits to go forward without opening the floodgates for meretricious libel suits by Democrats. I propose that SCOTUS should find the wire services and their members/subscribers to be in violation of antitrust law - and, on that account, not protected by Sullivan.