Advocating for Overturn of Iconic New York Times Case
A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is arguing that the Supreme Court should consider overturning the iconic New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. The 1964 case set the precedent that gave the leftist media too much control over the messaging of the press, benefiting the Democratic Party in the process.
Details of Recent Ruling
The judge, Laurence Silberman, penned his opinion in response to a recent ruling in the Tah and McClain v. Global Witness case. Silberman wrote the dissenting opinion in the case that ruled that Global Witness was not in violation of defamation law when it falsely accused Nigerian officials of accepting bribes from Exxon.
As a Reagan appointee, Silberman argued that Global Witness clearly took bribes from Exxon, defaming the Nigerians at the same time. In the dissent, Silberman also accused his colleagues, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge David Tatel, of making up new reasons to help Global Witness get away with defamation. Srinivasan is an Obama appointee while Tatel was appointed by Clinton.
Citing Clarence Thomas in Argument
Silberman also cited Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his argument, agreeing with the legendary conservative justice that the 1964 New York Times case was a “policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law.” He went on to say that the media is now abusing this power in order to advance a leftist agenda.
The judge specifically called out the New York Times, the Washington Post, and National Public Radio of being trumpets for the Democratic Party. He also pointed to the vast influence that America’s high-tech companies have on news delivery.