A judge from the D.C. Circuit for the Court of Appeals recently issued a fiery dissent in which he called on courts to revisit laws that protect the press from suffering liability for their reporting.
Judge Laurence Silberman warns that “authoritarian or dictatorial” governments first move is to control “communications, particularly the deliver of news.” He went on to state that “[single] party control of the press… is a threat to… democracy.”
Silberman points out that publications such as the Washington Post and The New York Times “are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets.” He further pointed out that Leftist control of the media extends to outlets such as the Associated Press, Boston Globe, L.A. Times and Miami Herald. “Nearly all television… is a Democratic Party trumpet,” he added.
Silberman’s argument targets New York Times v. Sullivan, which has directed press law in favor of media companies for over 50 years.
The judge also raised the issue of Silicon valley, which holds “enormous influence” over news distribution, and “similarly filters news… in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.”
Twitter and Facebook were caught red-handed in their censorship of media outlets and persons who accurately reported the Biden family’s dealings with foreign entities. Twitter suspended the accounts of high profile individuals such as White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, over simply sharing true and validated information which was perceived as damaging to the Democrats president elect.
Facebook publicly stated that it would censor any coverage of the story about the Biden’s corruption, a privilege extended to Biden by the Big Tech company in the final days of what was one of the most closely contested presidential races in history.
Silberman described Big Tech’s censorship of conservative speech “fundamentally un-American.”
While the First Amendment is designed to ensure that free press are able to trade openly on the market of ideas, Silberman points out that “biased press… distort the marketplace.” He says that when the press has demonstrated “its willingness… eagerness… to so distort,” that the laws which protect the press and “enhance” its power are “unjustified.”