At last! A judge objects to the media’s left bias and getting away with untruthfully smearing individuals.

The Western Journal reports:

Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman, appointed by President Reagan, objected to the vast protection the media have from being sued for libel. He wrote: “After observing my colleagues’ efforts to stretch the ‘actual malice’ rule like a rubber band, I am prompted to urge the overruling of New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Thomas has already persuasively demonstrated that New York Times was a policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law.” New considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the New York Times decision a threat to American Democracy. It must go. That case increased the power of the media. It could be argued that the press needed protection to cover the civil rights movement, but that protection is now abused. “I doubt the Court would invent the same rule now. As the case has subsequently been interpreted, it allows the press to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” If that power was applied in an even-handed manner, there would be no crisis, but that is not the case. Two of the three most influential papers, 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. Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news, and it too filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party. As an example, the  judge referred to Twitter’s efforts in the weeks before the 2020 election to block the distribution of the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer.  America’s democracy suffers from the bias of the media. “It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news.” It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy, even giving rise to extremism. The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas, but a biased press can distort the marketplace. “And when the media has proven its willingness — if not eagerness — to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’s power,” he wrote. He added that the reasons for press bias surely relate to bias at academic institutions.