It Really is Time to Revisit New York Times v. Sullivan

By Rich Kozlovich 

 Last year Jack Hellner, one of my favorite writers, published this piece asking, Shouldn't most media outlets be sueable?, saying how the media has deliberately and knowingly lied about Russia and Trump, have deliberately "disregarded the truth" for years, have promoted "witch hunts", and supported people like Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell spreading their lies saying:

They disenfranchised the voters that supported Trump by falsely calling him an illegitimate President. The interference in elections by the American media dwarfed anything Russia, China, and Iran have ever done..........

The media (acting as the public relations, propaganda department of the Democrat party) deliberately and collectively decided they needed to destroy Rep. Matt Gaetz.

CNN has breathlessly covered purported allegations of sexual misconduct against Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and the FBI investigation into said purported allegations, and now, thanks to Project Veritas, we know that a great deal of that coverage is driven by a desire to destroy Gaetz. CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester said the network is “going to keep running those stories to keep hurting him,” because “He’s a problem for the Democratic Party because he’s so conservative.” 

More  good reasons to revisit the 1964 Supreme Court ruling on New York Times v. Sullivan!  Although in this case, I think showing "actual malice" would be easy to prove, but it shouldn't be necessary, and it gets worse:

• How NOT to be a Target of the Left. Hint: Don’t ‘Like’ Matt Gaetz 
  
• MSNBC’s Reid, Kirschner Suggest DeSantis Involved in Gaetz Scandals

And their corruption isn't just attacking individuals they don't like, they defend the indefensible with projection, red herring fallacies, lies of commission and lies of omission. 

• CNN Tech Director Admits Black-on-Asian Violence is a Problem, But Network Focuses on White Criminals to ‘Help BLM’
• A CNN employee continues to give away devastating trade secrets
• CNN 'fesses up: Reporting promotes Black Lives Matter movement

Jurists are coming to the conclusion Sullivan needs fixed as a "Defiant Federal Judge Calls Out the Media-Democrat Complex, saying: 

One D.C. Circuit jurist pulled no punches as he sounded the alarm on ‘one-party control of the press and media.’   The flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target.”.... Judge Laurence Silberman, the formidable senior jurist on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, as a result of the dissent he filed in a recent libel case. .........Judge Silberman had the audacity to notice that the mainstream media function as an adjunct of the Democratic Party.......... 

The judge stated emphatically the New York Times v. Sullivan decision, just like the Chevron Deference, was without any constitution justification allowing the court to:

 "supplant the traditional state common law of defamation with a rule, speciously claimed to be mandated by the First Amendment, that requires defamed public figures to prove actual malice — i.e., to prove that any libelous statements were intentionally false or made with reckless disregard for their falsity."  

He went on to say:

This daunting burden makes it virtually impossible for public figures — including private persons who are transmogrified into celebrities by the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence — to sue successfully, even in cases where they have been slandered with false information ........

Justice Clarence Thomas, who I consider the finest jurist to sit on the Supreme court in my 78 years of life, "Calls for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling", saying:

Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.  He said the decision had no basis in the Constitution as it was understood by the people who drafted and ratified it...... “New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,”.............

 

It's understandable how this court could twist media corruption into a First Amendment issue when you see who made up the Court that made that unanimous decision:

 

William J. Brennan Jr.,  Hugo L. Black,  Tom C. Clark  William O. Douglas   Arthur J. Goldberg,  John Marshall Harlan, and Earl Warren.

 

Potter Stewart was notorious for insisting it was the Supreme Court who decides what the Constitution means, and in order to come up with the insane decisions they've come up with they created

 

 The Constitution says the Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

 

It appears this twisted ruling may change.  Now we're seeing that Trump's lawsuit against Stephanopoulos for defamation can go forward, and rightly so:

  

A federal judge on Wednesday refused to dismiss former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos over the anchor’s assertion that a jury concluded Trump had “raped” E. Jean Carroll....

NBC is being sued fro 30 million big bucks, for making  ‘verifiably false’ statements about physician by Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace, and Chris Hayes.  

Nick Sandmann sued for the Washington Post for $275 million.  The Post capitulated and agreed to an undisclosed settlement, but irrespective of how much was, and based on the reaction of Sandmann's family it was substantial, but the real victory was in the confirmation they lied, and they deliberately lied to promote a false narrative.

Charlie Rose in his recent article, Overturning New York Times v. Sullivan, stated:

....this decision is celebrated as a great victory for the First Amendment and free speech. That’s nonsense. After Sullivan, media corporations filled with professional writers, supposedly dedicated to reporting the truth, were granted government protection to bear false witness against public figures.

This is especially damaging for political figures. As media-propagated lies spread, for example, from the NYT to other established news outlets, our political candidates and leaders are powerless to stop the spread or punish those who broadcast damaging false information. This poisonous discourse opens the floodgates to lies and, dare I say, disinformation, to the point where the Pulitzer Prize Board can confidently award a major news organization for publishing lies.

Sullivan unleashed onto America a corp of corrupt media liars who worked to destroy the lives of people they disapproved of, and it's time to end this insanity and force the media to live by the same standards as the rest of America.  No one should be above the law!  After all, isn't that their unending meme while going after Trump, his allies and the J6 defendants, with lies? 

 

• Update, 4/25/25:  US Supreme Court turns away casino mogul Wynn’s bid to challenge NY Times v. Sullivan defamation rule The justices declined to hear an appeal by Wynn of a decision by Nevada’s top court to dismiss his defamation suit against the AP and one of its journalists....

Shouldn't most media outlets be sueable?

April 19, 2023 By Jack Hellner

Most of the media has been disparaging and seeking to destroy Fox News, and their on-air personalities, for the sole reason that they aren’t 100% in the tank for Democrats and their radical, leftist policies. Now, most media outlets are having a collective orgasm as they cheer for Dominion in their massive lawsuit about the 2020 election.

Shouldn’t almost all media outlets be sued for their continuous regurgitation of intentional lies about Russian disinformation and calling Trump an illegitimate President. They intentionally disregarded the truth for years as they sought to destroy Trump and his administration. They supported continuous witch hunts that were based on nothing. They continually had people like Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell on to spread the lies. They disenfranchised the voters that supported Trump by falsely calling him an illegitimate President.

The interference in elections by the American media dwarfed anything Russia, China, and Iran have ever done...........To Read More....

My Take - NBC News retracts spurious report on underage slaughterhouse workers:

"NBC News, perhaps unwillingly, revealed how easy it is to cross Biden's open border and enter the US by understating one's age................The open borders are impeachable offenses on the part of Joe Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas......."We are once again reminded why the late, great Rush Limbaugh referred to them as drive-by media. They break news or carry reports that cause a sensation. They spread falsehoods, ruin reputations and inflame the situation. By the time facts emerge, they have either moved on to the next story or selectively present facts to hide their mendacity."  ..............

Can there be any doubt needs to be revisited?  

Gaetz Turns It Around on CNN Journo After Network Exec Says Their Coverage of Him is "Propaganda"

ByJennifer Van Laar | Apr 14, 2021

CNN has breathlessly covered purported allegations of sexual misconduct against Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and the FBI investigation into said purported allegations, and now, thanks to Project Veritas, we know that a great deal of that coverage is driven by a desire to destroy Gaetz. CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester said the network is “going to keep running those stories to keep hurting him,” because “He’s a problem for the Democratic Party because he’s so conservative.” 

As my colleague Bonchie covered, Chester said that CNN’s “focus” in the 2020 election “was to get Trump out of office” and that Chester and his colleagues were “more than keen to take credit for putting Joe Biden in the White House.” Chester even went so far as to add a bullet point to his now-deleted LinkedIn account claiming he “played an integral part in the 2020 Presidential elections.”.........To Read More.....

• MSNBC’s Reid, Kirschner Suggest DeSantis Involved in Gaetz Scandals
•  CNN Tech Director Admits Black-on-Asian Violence is a Problem, But Network Focuses on White Criminals to ‘Help BLM’
•  A CNN employee continues to give away devastating trade secrets
•  CNN 'fesses up: Reporting promotes Black Lives Matter movement

My Take - Another good reason to revisit Sullivan v New York Times!  Although in this case, I think showing "actual malice" is going to be easy to prove if he chooses to sue CNN, which I hope he does.

How NOT to be a Target of the Left. Hint: Don’t ‘Like’ Matt Gaetz

By Cathi Chamberlain | Apr 14, 2021 | Politics

If you’ve ever complained about the 2020 election, Wuhan virus restrictions, Antifa, the border surge, visited Washington, D.C. on January 6th, or merely voted for Trump, you are a target of the left. And, you’re probably already on a terror watch list, too. Think I’m kidding?

On January 27, 2021, a mere week after Biden began his debatable term, his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an unprecedented National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin. It stated that “[I]nformation suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition … could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence… Domestic violent extremists have been … motivated by everything from anger over COVID-19 restrictions to the 2020 election results.” Did you catch that? 

If you have voiced displeasure at any of the above, you are now labeled a “domestic violent extremist.” Or, as the government has favored of late, a “Homegrown Violent Extremist” (HVE).

The Bulletin completely reversed course from a DHS October 2020 Homeland Threat Assessment that focused on “anarchist violence that has accelerated in our cities in recent months.” That Assessment targeted Antifa thugs who wreaked havoc in Democrat-controlled cities across America over the past summer. Yet, in three short months, everything has changed.  

That’s why what is happening to political firebrand Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) should make every freedom-loving American mad as hell.… 

THE EXTORTION OF A CONGRESSMAN..........

FAKE NEWS CONSPIRES AGAIN..........

GAETZ HITS BACK.............

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6.....

To Read More...... 

My Take - I think this is a really good time to address Sullivan v. New York Times. 

• Explosive Project Veritas Video Shows CNN Staffer Admitting Why Network Is Focusing on Matt Gaetz

 

Defiant Federal Judge Calls Out the Media-Democrat Complex

By Andrew C. McCarthy April 3, 2021

One D.C. Circuit jurist pulled no punches as he sounded the alarm on ‘one-party control of the press and media.’   The flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target.” This oft-cited World War II fighter-pilot wisdom is the best way to understand the strident reaction to Judge Laurence Silberman, the formidable senior jurist on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, as a result of the dissent he filed in a recent libel case.

In the course of controversially urging the Supreme Court to reconsider the foundation of its modern libel jurisprudence, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), Judge Silberman had the audacity to notice that the mainstream media function as an adjunct of the Democratic Party. When this development is combined with the activist progressivism of Silicon Valley techies who control social-media platforms, the result, he concluded, is “one-party control of the press and media.” This “threat to a viable democracy” is apt to lead “to countervailing extremism” — hard to argue with that these days.

Silberman’s point was that, without constitutional justification, the Supreme Court’s judicially legislated federalization of libel law substantially enhanced the power of the press. New York Times v. Sullivan supplanted the traditional state common law of defamation with a rule, speciously claimed to be mandated by the First Amendment, that requires defamed public figures to prove actual malice — i.e., to prove that any libelous statements were intentionally false or made with reckless disregard for their falsity. 

This daunting burden makes it virtually impossible for public figures — including private persons who are transmogrified into celebrities by the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence — to sue successfully, even in cases where they have been slandered with false information........To Read More...

 

Christine Ford, Justin Fairfax, and Me

February 20, 2019 By David Horowitz

When it was reported that the law firm of Ballard Spahr was representing Justin Fairfax, the Virginia Lieutenant Governor accused of raping two women, several bells went off in my head. I knew Ballard Spahr had also represented the serial liar Christine Blasey Ford in her attempt to destroy the reputation and career of Brett Kavanaugh. But I was also familiar with Ballard as the firm that represented the once-liberal organization Common Cause in its attempt to tar me as a “white supremacist” and “sexist,” and destroy my own reputation.

This effort was particularly instructive in revealing the dangerous mentality behind the blacklist, and the menace it poses not only to conservatives like myself, but to the future of our democracy............

When my lawyers sent a letter to Common Cause demanding a retraction for slandering me as a “white supremacist” and “sexist,” a Ballard Spahr lawyer named Seth D. Berlin replied: “Common Cause declines to do so. 

Common Cause’s characterizations of your clients’ ‘ideas’ and ‘rhetoric’ as ‘white supremacist,’ ‘racist,’ ‘sexist’ and the like, are fully protected expressions of its opinion.”

This was true. Since 1964, slandering a public figure – defaming him without evidence - is protected by the Constitution as per a decision of the Supreme Court in NYTimes v. Sullivan.[10] This decision is responsible for the debased state of our current press since it has relieved media institutions of their legal liability for making false and character-damaging statements about public figures they oppose. Slander has consequently – and disastrously -- become the common currency of the Fourth Estate.

I already understood these facts but had asked my lawyer to send the letter anyway, knowing we did not have a legal case. I saw it as an appeal to the conscience of the Common Cause executives to look at what I had actually said and voluntarily take an action that would repair some of the damage they had done to my reputation...........Read more

Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!"

By Rich Kozlovich

(Editor's Note:  I originally published this on 7/15/18, but with all this interest in NYTimes V. Sullivan and comments by Judge Clearance Thomas - the Constitutionality of that decision - and commentators defending that decision as "settled law" under the concept of Stare Decisis I thought it useful to republish it now. RK)

I just read Bastasch’s article, Brett Kavanaugh put a serious damper on EPA power grabs, which gave me more confidence in this man, at least until he ended the article saying this about overturning the Endangerment Finding. He says:

"However, Adler (a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law) said it’s unlikely the court overturn Massachusetts v. EPA because of its strong tradition of “stare decisis” — latin for “to stand by things decided.” “It’s one thing to overturn a bad constitutional decision because Congress can’t fix that,” Adler said, though he added a Kennedy-less court could narrow the application of Massachusetts v. EPA. “It’s not going to be overturned,” he said."

For a law professor to say such a thing on such an issue is clearly demonstrating his bias in my opinion, especially since the adoration to "stare decisis" is a one way street for leftists.

I’m not sure how Kavanaugh would vote on a new Endangerment Finding case, but we need to get rid of this idea of “stare decisis” as the deciding factor.

These leftist justices have overturned “stare decisis” over and over again, and have been lauded by the very leftists who claim to adore the concept. Let's try and get this right - "stare decisis" - is not written in stone and the only reason to openly support it as something that’s “sacred” is nothing more than a public relations scam by anyone involved in politics or law. The left only 'adores' the concept if someone supports any of the leftist decisions that overturned "stare decisis" decisions of the past.

Any effort to overturn leftist decisions that have no Constitutional basis other than what's called the "penumbra of the Constitution" is sacrilege to the law and the Constitution according to the left.

"In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions......."

An open ended concept that allows for abuse!

The word penumbra originally was a scientific term "created to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses." And I think the word shadows is more than appropriate when its used in relationship with the Constitution.   The "penumbra" of the Constitution "implies" rights not actually written in the Constitution, and in fact the concept allows for the ability to define, redefine and even ignore the actual and simple language of the Constitution, all of which has been done by the federal judiciary at every level. All in an effort to make the Constitution a "Living Document".

The problem with that is all the "living" changes are determined by the wrong branch of government. The Constitution never gave the federal judiciary to right to "legislate" via some indefinable term that's been adopted by those whose one desire is to destroy the Constitution. The unelected Judiciary have overstepped their Constitutional bounds into the territory the Constitution assigns to the Legislature.

It's always amazing how devoted progressives, socialists, leftists and liberals are to the Constitution, when it's convenient. But in reality, this is the document they've called a dusty old document and many early Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson considered an "impediment to human progress".  Nothing has changed!  Any concerns they express about devotion to "stare decisis" is strictly politics.

Now, that brings me back to green issues, Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court. Here’s one thing I don’t think many know and I think could be a big factor in deciding any green issue that comes before SCOTUS.

Who was Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother?

Ann Burford Gorsuch, a one time head of the EPA during the Reagan administration who was eviscerated by the left and the green movement in and out of government, and those she called "pack journalists." I have no doubt about his view of the leftist swamp and their green misanthropic allies.

Will that have an impact on Kavanaugh?    I don't know, except I have no doubt Gorsuch has a much clearer understanding of all these green issues and the people involved than any of the rest.  And I'm confident he has the ability to explain them properly.

As for Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor? They're hopeless. They couldn't be convinced day was light or night was dark if it wasn't supportive of some kind of leftist clabber or other.  Not a one of them pass the test of unbiased open mindedness the left demands of Trump's appointments or a rational understanding of what the Constitution really says, often times creating policies that have shattered generations of Americans. 

However, they support those who believe the following:

• 58% of Democrats believe in UFOs, but only 32% are proud to be American. Only 37% of Republicans believe in flying saucers, but a full 80% are proud of their country.
• Almost twice as many Democrats are willing to believe in being abducted by space aliens than in their country. Hillary Clinton had promised that if elected, she would find out the truth about the little green men and suggested that the planet had already been visited by aliens. "Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51," she suggested.
• The chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, John Podesta, an obsessive UFO buff, appeared on an episode of Ancient Aliens which claimed that Hillary Clinton was defeated to suppress the truth about space aliens.
• Democrats are the party least likely to know that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. Only between 48% to 27% of the enlightened supporters of the Party of Science actually knew this.
• 45% of liberals believe in astrology.
• Three-quarters of Democrats believe that thoughts can influence the physical world.
• Over half believe in ghosts.
• Almost a third of Democrats, twice as many as Republicans, believe in “spiritual energy”. 35% of liberals compared to 18% of conservatives are believers.
• A fifth of Democrats fear the “evil eye”.
• If you can name a superstition, knocking on wood, walking under ladders or stepping on a crack, polls show that Democrats are more likely to believe in it.
• Democrats are 60% more likely to fear black cats than Republicans (so much for the anti-racist party)
• 33% more likely to fear the number 13.
• The rational and enlightened elite who want to make all our decisions are also 54% more likely to think that opening an umbrella indoors is bad luck.
• A fifth of Democrats believe it’s unlucky to walk under a ladder.
• Nearly a fifth believe in fortune telling.

But then.......to be on the left is a one way street, and being open minded to the left means being so open your brains fall out.

 

 

Justice Clarence Thomas Calls for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling

ByAdam Liptak Feb. 19, 2019

WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.  He said the decision had no basis in the Constitution as it was understood by the people who drafted and ratified it.

“New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” Justice Thomas wrote.
 

Justice Thomas, writing only for himself, made his statement in a concurring opinion agreeing that the court had correctly turned down an appeal from Kathrine McKee, who has accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault. She sued Mr. Cosby for libel after his lawyer said she had been dishonest............To Read More.....

Can Nick Sandmann Save the First Amendment?

David Catron February 21, 2019

Nick Sandmann is back in the news, literally with a vengeance. If there is anyone in the galaxy who doesn’t recognize the name, this is the high school teen viciously maligned by the media after a leftwing activist with a film crew attempted to provoke a confrontation with him as he waited for a bus near the Lincoln Memorial. Having committed the crimes of wearing a red MAGA cap and smiling, Sandmann was vilified by the media as a smug beneficiary of “white privilege” who had bullied a Native American veteran. This turned out to be a lie, of course.

Consequently, Sandmann’s parents are suing the Washington Post for $250 million pursuant to its participation in a “modern-day form of McCarthyism” and enthusiastically joining “a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann, an innocent secondary school child.” The pretext for this outrage was a deceptively edited video suggesting that Sandmann was the aggressor in the “confrontation” with alleged Vietnam veteran Nathan Phillips.

The full video revealed that the former was, in fact, the victim..........To Read More....

Why the Washington Post has got to be worried about the quarter-billion-dollar defamation lawsuit filed by Nick Sandmann and his parents

February 20, 2019 By Thomas Lifson

Jeff Bezos, the richest person in the world and owner of the Washington Post, is about to encounter Kentucky justice, and I suspect he is not going to be happy with it.

The parents of Nick Sandmann chose well in hiring renowned lawyer L. Lin Wood, who won over $5 million from NBC over its coverage of Richard Jewell during the Olympic Park bombing incident.

Wood and associated counsel launched a lawsuit in federal court in Covington, Kentucky (the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division).According to the Diocese of Covington, 18% of the area's population is Catholic. The Eastern District Court of Kentucky is within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Cincinnati, generally regarded as the most conservative major metropolitan area in the United States.

From the WaPo's own article on the suit:...............

Libel lawsuits are notoriously difficult for plaintiffs to win, but 16-year-old Nick Sandmann was not a public figure when the Post launched its allegedly defamatory coverage of his encounter with Nathan Phillips, which means that the standard is negligence, not actual malice................Read more