Federal Judge rules Democrats control all major news outlets

[Monica33]

Judge confirms something that all fair minded and objective people have known for decades --- above and below .

A Deep State must be able to control Information and Health ( Body plus Mind ) for it to function optimally for itself .

For that to happen , Compliant and therefore Gullible Sheeple are pre-requisites .Example , here .

Are enough Sheeple ready to overthrow their master's iron grip over them in 2021 ?

An increasing belief is that we are at a Tipping Point and that the Legacy Media ( bluntly the fake news MSM ) are near doomed to be scrapped to a bad chapter of history .

Enough critical eyes and minds have seen the rotten and lying nature within present news distribution , and the advance of alternative sources on the Internet will increasingly be dominated by independent , truth seeking , honest people .

The Unbribeables . Think Information Pinkerton Marshalls . Think those types of forerunner before the later Secret Service became totally corrupt .



D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman outlined his opposition to the Supreme Court’s key decision in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, which has since protected many media outlets from lawsuits.
Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the ruling is “a threat to American Democracy” and must be overturned.

“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. It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat,” he continued.
“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,” he added.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

 

[ASHES]

He didn't know about the internet.

 

[j brown's body]

Im blocked from reading epoch times. Not that I'm complaining.

 

[Monica33]

He didn't know about the internet.

Am sure he did . 100% .
However , that was not part of the court case and will surely be dealt with rapidly but separately given the desperate attempts by the Masters of the Universe ( Silicon Valley ) to grab power so fast .
It all devolves into --- which faction of the Intel Agencies and Deep State do you want to live under ?

 

[Monica33]

Im blocked from reading epoch times. Not that I'm complaining.

Epoch are a Messenger of Factual Content . Anything yet in the Fake News MSM ?

P.S. Any decent Pharmacy should be able to sell you something for your regrettable constipation .

 

[j brown's body]

Epoch are a Messenger of Factual Content . Anything yet in the Fake News MSM ?

P.S. Any decent Pharmacy should be able to sell you something for your regrettable constipation .

"...a leading purveyor of right-wing misinformation."

Link

 

[code1211]

Judge confirms something that all fair minded and objective people have known for decades --- above and below .

A Deep State must be able to control Information and Health ( Body plus Mind ) for it to function optimally for itself .

For that to happen , Compliant and therefore Gullible Sheeple are pre-requisites .Example , here .

Are enough Sheeple ready to overthrow their master's iron grip over them in 2021 ?

An increasing belief is that we are at a Tipping Point and that the Legacy Media ( bluntly the fake news MSM ) are near doomed to be scrapped to a bad chapter of history .

Enough critical eyes and minds have seen the rotten and lying nature within present news distribution , and the advance of alternative sources on the Internet will increasingly be dominated by independent , truth seeking , honest people .

The Unbribeables . Think Information Pinkerton Marshalls . Think those types of forerunner before the later Secret Service became totally corrupt .



D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman outlined his opposition to the Supreme Court’s key decision in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, which has since protected many media outlets from lawsuits.
Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the ruling is “a threat to American Democracy” and must be overturned.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The real problem to me is the outrageously biased and corrupt twisting and perverting of opinion by the Social Media Sites.

I have suggested in the past that when a "fact checker" type action is taken against a poster including taking down posts and banning them from access, then the platform must be able to demonstrate that the same rule used is used impartially.

So, when Trump is banned and the Ayatollah's access is left intact, THEN the platform should be fined if the access is not restored immediately and completely. The bias is obvious.

In the case of banning a poster, the fine should be $100.00 times the number of followers on that site that are "following" that poster.

So, when Trump is banned, Twitter, as an example plucked from the air, would be forced to pay to Trump $100 x the 80 million followers that he had or $8 Trillion dollars.

Seems fair to me.

 

[Cameron]

I skimmed the dissent and IMO the only thing this judge has done is exposed his own lack of objectivity. It is entirely inappropriate for a judge to make the kind of judgments this one does about institutions and parties not before the court and “facts” or evidence not contained or tested in any judicial record whatsoever. How is anybody supposed to trust that he will be impartial moving forward in any lawsuit involving the media. Perhaps he is intending to retire soon and this is intended as his swan song, but he should have saved it for a retirement piece in Breitbart.

 

[code1211]

I skimmed the dissent and IMO the only thing this judge has done is exposed his own lack of objectivity. It is entirely inappropriate for a judge to make the kind of judgments this one does about institutions and parties not before the court and “facts” or evidence not contained or tested in any judicial record whatsoever. How is anybody supposed to trust that he will be impartial moving forward in any lawsuit involving the media. Perhaps he is intending to retire soon and this is intended as his swan song, but he should have saved it for a retirement piece in Breitbart.

Is there a particular point expressed that you take exception to?

 

[Cameron]

Is there a particular point expressed that you take exception to?

You mean factually? Yes, I take exception to most of it. But that's not even the point -- people will disagree with a judge's fact finding or reasoning in many cases. The main point is that it is completely inappropriate for a judge to be using an official dissent to rant about parties not even before the court. Even if what he said were 100% accurate it would be inappropriate. Making matters even worse, he was taking a clearly partisan position, calling into question not only his ability to be impartial about certain media organizations but basically every partisan issue. This should have been saved for a political rally or (as I noted) a Breitbart piece, not a judicial opinion.

 

[highroller]

The Epoch Times? Is Infowars offline?

 

[code1211]

You mean factually? Yes, I take exception to most of it. But that's not even the point -- people will disagree with a judge's fact finding or reasoning in many cases. The main point is that it is completely inappropriate for a judge to be using an official dissent to rant about parties not even before the court. Even if what he said were 100% accurate it would be inappropriate. Making matters even worse, he was taking a clearly partisan position, calling into question not only his ability to be impartial about certain media organizations but basically every partisan issue. This should have been saved for a political rally or (as I noted) a Breitbart piece, not a judicial opinion.

With respect, it not just the option, but the required responsibility of any judge, in making any ruling, to consider various points of law and precedent that have bearing on the topic considered.

In the case of this judge conjecturing that the media outlets are biased, this seems obvious.

Are you asserting there is no bias in the media?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Some people have no problem posting lies. It's just the culture of much of the right wing in America today.