Federal Decide UPSETS Libs with ‘Blistering Rant’ In opposition to Orthodoxy of Liberal Media, Huge Tech

Liberal journalists were upset on Friday when Laurence Silberman, a Reagan-appointed judge who is now in higher status (semi-retired), got caught up in the partisan and censored behavior of the liberal media and big tech.

At Politico Josh Gerstein used the passionate words: “Silberman’s Diatribe, included in his dissent on a libel case, amounted to a withering frontal attack on the 1964 Supreme Court decision that set the framework for the modern defamation law – New York Times v Sullivan. “He later added that it was a” blistering judicial abuse “. Let us assume that Politico never used such words to describe Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s views.

Worse still, Silberman praised Clarence Thomas: “Justice Thomas has already shown convincingly that the New York Times was a policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law.” It is almost impossible to get a defamation accuser to show “real malice” in misusing the truth. You would need to investigate their inner thoughts or find them on their social media posts now.

Mark Joseph Stern of the liberal sandpit Slate was also upset about the unreasonable demands of Silberman’s “really wild dissent” against the elites who curate and curtail opinions:

🚨DC Circuit Judge Silberman just posted a really wild dissent calling for the Supreme Court to overthrow the New York Times on Sullivan. He claims the NYT and WaPo are “leaflets of the practically democratic party” and accuses “big tech” of censoring conservatives. https://t.co/NvFli5sEso pic.twitter.com/mTMklTlNfo

– Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 19, 2021

A “really wild disagreement” would say that these papers are “practical” broadsheets! I mean, check out their front pages!

The case centers on a 2018 report by Global Witness Publishing that accused Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain of accepting bribes from Exxon. The majority in this case decided in favor of Global Witness and found no “real malice”.

“The increasing power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions,” said the judge. “While the bias towards the Republican Party – not just controversial figures – is quite shocking today, it is not new. It’s a long-term, secular trend that dates back to at least the 1970s. Control of the press and media by a party is a threat to a sustainable democracy. “

He said, “The New York Times and Washington Post are practically broad sheets of the Democratic Party. And the Wall Street Journal news section goes in the same direction. These three newspapers are targeted by The Associated Press and most of the major newspapers in the country (Like the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe.) Almost all television – network and cable – is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even government-backed National Public Radio follows suit. “

Silberman cited Facebook and Twitter’s suppression of the New York Post as they made a major contribution to the acquisition of Hunter Biden’s laptop at the end of the 2020 campaign. “Silicon Valley is also having a tremendous impact on news distribution. It also filters news delivery in ways that are beneficial to the Democratic Party.”

“The suppression of political speech by large institutions with market power … is – I say this with caution – fundamentally un-American,” Silberman wrote in a footnote. “As someone who lived through the McCarthy era, it is difficult to fathom how honorable men and women can support such actions.”