Silberman himself is not as important as the principles he happens
to bring up criticizing the media and the following reaction to it,
in the law case 19-7132-1890626.pdf. I add the link to the court
document because "lawandcrime" adds a link that looks to be a
diversion from the real link:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C5F7840A6FFFCF648525869D004ECAC5/$file/19-7132-1890626.pdf
https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/reagan-appointed-circuit-judge-issues-scathing-dissent-calling-nyt-and-wapo-democratic-party-broadsheets-praising-fox-news/
Dan Abrams "law and crime" goes on to parrot the New York Times
line that criticism of the media is solely in the interest of
Trump and Fox News. The title itself is a libel as the subject
of the hit piece did not praise Fox News and added a criticism of
it.
Another site going on in praise of monopoly media is Mother Jones:
https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2021/03/federal-judge-smears-the-press-a-threat-to-a-viable-democracy/
Again parroting the CNN dictum that criticizing the media is
dangerously subversive, Mother Jones also has the same picture
heading the article of President Bush awarding the Medal of
Freedom to Silberman, the same Silberman who, according to
wikipedia, later denounced Bush for he "deceived the American
people about the threat from Saddam". Is Mother Jones
offended by that now that the New York Times has "rehabilitated"
Bush and Cheney's foreign policy and has censored criticism of
the Iraq War and it's ilk? Mother Jones goes on and about
how criticism of the media is only in the interest of
conservatives, Trump, etc., which is also a libel of their own
readers.
That the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, The Washington
Post, the Associated Press, NPR, USA Today, Facebook, Google,
Twitter, etc, have the same political angle on every story and never
differ with each other is noticeable by their readers, no matter how
many times they proclaim the public is incapable of independent
thought.
The hatred and divisiveness widely claimed to be around today is
the direct result of media concentration! there is, also, the
alarmingly high levels of trust in the media, that is, according to
the media polls.
A few excerpts from 19-7132-1890626.pdf:
The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we
are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our
court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of
the press leading to a "bland and homogenous" marketplace of ideas.
See Hale v. FCC, 425 F.2d 556, 562 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (Tamm, J.,
concurring). It turns out that ideological consolidation of the
press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater
threat.
See Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S.
749, 769 (1985) (White, J., concurring):The New York Timesrule thus countenances two evils: first, the stream of information about
public officials and public affairs is polluted and often remains
polluted by false information; and second, the reputation and
professional life of the defeated plaintiff may be destroyed by
falsehoods that might have been avoided with a reasonable effort
to investigate the facts. In terms of the First Amendment and
reputational interests at stake, these seem grossly perverse results.
Although the bias against the Republican Party -- not just controversial individuals -- is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a
long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do
not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular
politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are
virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of
The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation
of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most
large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times,
Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television -- network
and cable -- is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.
As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence
over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news
delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party. See Kaitlyn
Tiffany, Twitter Goofed It, The Atlantic (2020) ("Within a few
hours, Facebook announced that it would limit [a New York Post]
story's spread on its platform while its third-party fact-checkers
somehow investigated the information. Soon after, Twitter took an
even more dramatic stance: Without immediate public explanation,
it completely banned users from posting the link to the story.").
It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination "raises the specter
that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints
from the marketplace." R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S.
377, 387 (1992). But ideological homogeneity in the media -- or
in the channels of information distribution -- risks repressing
certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if
access were restricted by the government.
To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall
Street Journal's editorial page. It should be sobering for those
concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled
by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what
is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all,
there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart
(mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years,
their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media,
either by direct bans or content-based censorship.
There can be little question that the overwhelming uniformity of
news bias in the United States has an enormous political impact.
That was empirically and persuasively demonstrated in Tim Groseclose’s insightful book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the
American Mind (2011). Professor Groseclose showed that media bias
is significantly to the left. Id. at 192–197; see also id. at 169–77.
And this distorted market has the effect, according to Groseclose,
of aiding Democratic Party candidates by 8–10% in the typical
election. Id. at ix, 201–33. And now, a decade after this book's publication, the press and media do not even pretend to be neutral
news services.
It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore,
that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a
viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism.
The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant
trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace.
And when the media has proven its willingness -- if not eagerness
-- to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified
legal rules that serve only to enhance the press' power.
The reasons for press bias are too complicated to address here. But
they surely relate to bias at academic institutions.
Of course, I do not take a position on the legality of big tech's
behavior. Some emphasize these companies are private and therefore
not subject to the First Amendment. Yet -- even if correct -- it
is not an adequate excuse for big tech's bias. The First Amendment
is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important
value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by
large institutions with market power therefore is -- I say this
advisedly -- fundamentally un-American. As one who lived through
the McCarthy era, it is hard to fathom how honorable men and women
can support such actions. One would hope that someone, in any
institution, would emulate Margaret Chase Smith.
Admittedly, a number of Fox's commentators lean as far to the right
as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean
to the left.
On 3/22/21 10:49 PM, weary flake wrote:labeled "[n]early all television—network and cable—a Democratic Party trumpet." His dissent also accused big tech companies of censoring conservatives and warned that "Democratic Party ideological control" of the media may be a prelude to an "
Silberman himself is not as important as the principles he happens
to bring up criticizing the media and the following reaction to it,
in the law case 19-7132-1890626.pdf. I add the link to the court
document because "lawandcrime" adds a link that looks to be a
diversion from the real link:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C5F7840A6FFFCF648525869D004ECAC5/$file/19-7132-1890626.pdf
https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/reagan-appointed-circuit-judge-issues-scathing-dissent-calling-nyt-and-wapo-democratic-party-broadsheets-praising-fox-news/
The above two links are the only ones mentioned about this case on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Silberman
Dissenting vigorously in Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc. Silberman called on the Supreme Court to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, and claimed that the New York Times and The Washington Post are "virtually Democratic Party broadsheets," and
In the court paper he brings up the that libel-enabled media
monopolies can violate the First Amendment by persecuting people
at will who dare to speak up.
But if you look at the court paper you can see that Silberman is hypocritical and one of the culprits in defending the suspension of
the libel laws. The story goes that in 1964 the New York Times
donated a full page advertisement urging donations to Martin Luther
King including an article that fabricates a story about cops on
horseback with shotguns barricading students in a room and
padlocking it and trying to starve them into submission. Since
this incident didn't occur the official of the Southern county
named in the article complained, the New York Times is claimed to
have retracted the article but was sued and won. Silberman cites
that a local Southern newspaper editorial celebrated the victory.
Silberman then mentions that other Southern suits against Northern newspapers were pending. Then the New York Times appealed to a
higher court and demanded the court to forbid enforcing libel laws
against the media; Silberman supported this, not for legal
reasons, but political reasons. What this particular case has
to with the other Southern suits was not considered. In no case
does Silberman or the New York Times consider that filing false
suits are as illegal in 1964 as they are now, nor would they
have supported barriers to filing suits. Ignored is the supposed
need to fabricate the article in the first place and also the need
to libel Martin Luther King if they made it look like the story
involved him, and the implication that they were unable to find
any actual incidents, so had to invent them.
But now Silberman is complaining that the other judges are
considering New York Times v. Sullivan to be a constitutional law
and not merely a procedural maneuver for the extra-legal reasons
of "necessity". He expresses his opposition to "anti-SLAPP" laws
as a barrier to plaintiffs perhaps similar to the barriers
to plaintiffs in libel suits that originated in a "law" that
was dictated by an appeals court in a naked power grab by the
New York Times in 1964.
All this tends to be glossed over in the media like in the
"lawandcrime" website or Mother Jones where Silberman's position
is made out to be that civil rights mattered in 1964 but "no longer
matter". It should be mentioned that the Dan Abrams law and crime
website apparently censors their comments and no comments
disagreeing with the article are allowed. So the comments
wishing for Silberman's death and similar threats should be
considered as the opinion of the website itself.
Dan Abrams "law and crime" goes on to parrot the New York Times
line that criticism of the media is solely in the interest of
Trump and Fox News. The title itself is a libel as the subject
of the hit piece did not praise Fox News and added a criticism of
it.
Another site going on in praise of monopoly media is Mother Jones:
https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2021/03/federal-judge-smears-the-press-a-threat-to-a-viable-democracy/
Again parroting the CNN dictum that criticizing the media is
dangerously subversive, Mother Jones also has the same picture
heading the article of President Bush awarding the Medal of
Freedom to Silberman, the same Silberman who, according to
wikipedia, later denounced Bush for he "deceived the American
people about the threat from Saddam". Is Mother Jones
offended by that now that the New York Times has "rehabilitated"
Bush and Cheney's foreign policy and has censored criticism of
the Iraq War and it's ilk? Mother Jones goes on and about
how criticism of the media is only in the interest of
conservatives, Trump, etc., which is also a libel of their own
readers.
That the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, The Washington
Post, the Associated Press, NPR, USA Today, Facebook, Google,
Twitter, etc, have the same political angle on every story and never differ with each other is noticeable by their readers, no matter how
many times they proclaim the public is incapable of independent
thought.
The hatred and divisiveness widely claimed to be around today is
the direct result of media concentration! there is, also, the
alarmingly high levels of trust in the media, that is, according to
the media polls.
A few excerpts from 19-7132-1890626.pdf:
The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we
are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our
court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of
the press leading to a "bland and homogenous" marketplace of ideas.
See Hale v. FCC, 425 F.2d 556, 562 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (Tamm, J., concurring). It turns out that ideological consolidation of the
press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater
threat.
See Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S.
749, 769 (1985) (White, J., concurring):The New York Timesrule thus countenances two evils: first, the stream of information about
public officials and public affairs is polluted and often remains
polluted by false information; and second, the reputation and
professional life of the defeated plaintiff may be destroyed by
falsehoods that might have been avoided with a reasonable effort
to investigate the facts. In terms of the First Amendment and
reputational interests at stake, these seem grossly perverse results.
Although the bias against the Republican Party -- not just controversial individuals -- is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do
not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are
virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of
The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation
of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most
large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times,
Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television -- network
and cable -- is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.
As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence
over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news
delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party. See Kaitlyn
Tiffany, Twitter Goofed It, The Atlantic (2020) ("Within a few
hours, Facebook announced that it would limit [a New York Post]
story's spread on its platform while its third-party fact-checkers
somehow investigated the information. Soon after, Twitter took an
even more dramatic stance: Without immediate public explanation,
it completely banned users from posting the link to the story.").
It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination "raises the specter
that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints
from the marketplace." R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S.
377, 387 (1992). But ideological homogeneity in the media -- or
in the channels of information distribution -- risks repressing
certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if
access were restricted by the government.
To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall
Street Journal's editorial page. It should be sobering for those
concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled
by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what
is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all,
there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart
(mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years,
their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media,
either by direct bans or content-based censorship.
There can be little question that the overwhelming uniformity of
news bias in the United States has an enormous political impact.
That was empirically and persuasively demonstrated in Tim Groseclose’s insightful book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the
American Mind (2011). Professor Groseclose showed that media bias
is significantly to the left. Id. at 192–197; see also id. at 169–77. And this distorted market has the effect, according to Groseclose,
of aiding Democratic Party candidates by 8–10% in the typical
election. Id. at ix, 201–33. And now, a decade after this book's publication, the press and media do not even pretend to be neutral
news services.
It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore,
that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a
viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism.
The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant
trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace.
And when the media has proven its willingness -- if not eagerness
-- to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified
legal rules that serve only to enhance the press' power.
The reasons for press bias are too complicated to address here. But
they surely relate to bias at academic institutions.
Of course, I do not take a position on the legality of big tech's behavior. Some emphasize these companies are private and therefore
not subject to the First Amendment. Yet -- even if correct -- it
is not an adequate excuse for big tech's bias. The First Amendment
is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important
value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by
large institutions with market power therefore is -- I say this
advisedly -- fundamentally un-American. As one who lived through
the McCarthy era, it is hard to fathom how honorable men and women
can support such actions. One would hope that someone, in any
institution, would emulate Margaret Chase Smith.
Admittedly, a number of Fox's commentators lean as far to the right
as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean
to the left.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 227:24:51 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,318,856 |