(UnitedVoice.com) – It seems in America that free speech is being used to stifle free speech. That’s a concern that D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman expressed in a scathing 23-page dissent about a libel case involving two former Liberian officials and a human rights group who implied the two officials took bribes to help push through an oil contract. It was a case about First Amendment protections and their broad interpretation regarding speech for public figures.
In the mid-1960s, the Supreme Court ruled for heavy protections of free speech in the New York Times v. Sullivan’s landmark case. The high court ruled that defendants must establish malice to prove that a media company deserves legal scrutiny over a false report. The standard it set makes it virtually impossible for public figures to sue the media for defamation. There are virtually no consequences for the media other than a back page retraction few will ever read. However, Judge Silberman requested in his dissent that the US Supreme Court consider looking at the case since the media is largely in collusion with the Democratic Party and free speech is being toppled on its head due to the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling.
A Threat to Democracy
One of the reasons the founding fathers included freedom of the press in the US Constitution was to protect the media from the government punishing it for exposing its bad deeds. They saw the media as a means to hold the government accountable for its bad actions. However, in the modern era, much of the media are political ideologues who aren’t concerned with holding the government accountable. Instead, they partner with the Democratic Party to extend its influence and persuade America to one point of view.
In his dissent, Judge Silberman labeled the New York Times, The Washington Post, and every other large paper, network, and radio station, as “Democratic Party broadsheets” and “trumpets.”
Silberman added that by the media partnering with the Democratic Party over ideology, it risked destroying free speech. It does this by suppressing speech, censoring other news media and public figures it doesn’t agree with politically. In turn, the judge argued it represses ideas “from the public consciousness just as surely if access were restricted by the government.”
The thrust of Silberman’s dissent was that bias isn’t “an adequate excuse” and that the news media is becoming a “threat to democracy.”
The Left Is Trying to Use the Media to Silence Conservatives
The judge makes a solid case for requesting the Supreme Court re-evaluate the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. America is changing as authoritarian Democrats, and the woke Left works to silence those who love the US Constitution. We’re far beyond Dan Rather making false claims on CBS Evening News about George W. Bush in the 2000 election.
The media censors conservative media, presidents and any figure it doesn’t agree with politically. It’s no longer within the bounds of the Constitution. Judge Silberman closed his dissent by writing that what’s going on between the Democratic Party and the media is the first step taken by a “potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime” to gain control of the government.
He’s not wrong, and Americans who are news consumers should consider his compelling argument.
Don Purdum, Independent Political Analyst
Copyright 2021, UnitedVoice.com