Jeffery Bewkes is the CEO and COB of Time Warner Inc. and the entire reason he caught my attention today was that he appears to be yet another big shot liberal admitting some remarkable truths. He confessed today that he thinks it is Democrats that represent a greater threat to the First Amendment than does Trump or the Republicans. The content of the admission is not what is remarkable rather than who is saying it. This is the guy that controls many media sources, among them CNN. Understandably yet disappointing he stopped short of criticizing his own brands for their culpability, but he joins a small but growing crowd in the liberal media that have recently begun more introspective analysis. Should we trust him as being genuine here? I do have my doubts considering he is very hopeful for an $85 billion deal where AT&T will purchase Time Warner, which is presently under scrutiny. Pardon me if I have my doubts but good for him, ulterior motives or not.
so this guy is really out of touch with reality. Yes, the Dems supported a constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United but that has no chance of ever happening even if Hillary had been elected. Just too hard to get an amendment passed, although the Texas governor is trying to do just that.
Trump can only change the FA by appointing enough SCT judges to overrule or restrict the “constitutional malice” rule that protects the press (which actually wouldn’t be a bad idea bc it is outdated in the internet age where any bozo with an on line blog can claim to be the press) but few if any judges think this is a good idea.
While Trump has babbled about changing libel laws to make it easier to sue the press, libel laws are state laws which neither he nor Congress can change. Again, SCOTUS would have to scuttle the NY Times malice rule to do this. So you need not worry about this one
You are on the correct path though in that the "Free Press" is the biggest threat to the 1st Amendment due to their shirking the greatest of responsibilities bestowed upon them.
BTW, it's interesting to note that you believe you agree with few if any judges on the point.
do you care to tell me what your point was, or do you just want your post to die?
You said that this media titan had admitted "remarkable truths" but the statement highlighted is not true at all. So I don't see why we should "care" that he said it.
And I didn't quite say that the Free Press is a "threat" to the First Amendment but rather that the "absence of malice" standard that protects the main stream media should not protect equally internet sites that contain fake news. I think Trump is right that he should be able to sue webbies who make false statements about him even though they neither know nor should know the statement was false.
...saved yourself the embarrassment of once again displaying your ignorance of the law.
You said: "I think Trump is right that he should be able to sue webbies who make false statements about him even though they neither know nor should know the statement was false."
That is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the law. You have just given the "actual malice" standard for a public figure. Trump CAN sue the press if they know or should have known the statement was false. You got it completely ass backwards. STFU already.
Mari's check to JDU's online legal college bounced so they never sent him any more course materials after the very first introductory course titled "How to become a fake lawyer by using Google"
I am sure you find Mari's "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" about the law to be every bit as frustrating as when he pretends to understand how the financial markets work.
I hope I don't need to explain that statement. In this country, anyone who publishes anything has a right to protection under the First Amendment and the libel laws, no matter how stupid and repugnant. Also, under our existing laws, Trump already CAN sue "webbies" who make statements he believes are false. As a public figure, he simply has a higher burden to win his case.
This country has for centuries had elements of the press that are irresponsible and play fast-and-loose with the facts. They have yet to destroy the country. What can destroy it are idiots who believe anything they read.
to win a libel suit against the traditional media because of the constitutional malice standard they are afforded. The question is whether a web blogger who is not a journalist gets the same full First Amendment protection.
Because anyone can go on the web and publish false news, and because this has consequences beyond damaging reputation, as we see from the pizza shootout, I happen to think a lesser standard should be applied if you sue a blogger than if you sue the NY Times. In the one case I know of, where the blogger falsely posted that plaintiff had engaged in illegal conduct, the district court agreed with me and plaintiff wain over a million; the Ninth Circuit, however, reversed and has sided with the bloggers; I just think this is bad from a policy standpoint
"Public figures" sue the traditional media all the time and win. What rock have you been hiding under for the last several decades.
If you are trying to prove BPS wrong about you being a fake lawyer, you really need to stop making dumb statements like this that any first year law student would know is not true. Tabloids like the National Enquirer treat libel suits as a cost of doing business as they KNOW they are going to get sued with regularity and that they are going to lose many of those cases.
BTW Rick Perry says hello from his jail cell. Oh wait, Rick Perry didn't go to jail did he? Far from it and far from being "done" Rick Perry had a meeting with PEOTUS this week, in between appearances on Dancing with the Stars. Now I do agree Rick Perry 'should" be in jail, but only the most naïve and clueless among us actually would have believed he was "going down" over that piece of bullshit you were so excited about.
He made Jake look smart.
Of course it didn't hurt that for the first time in quite a while I don't have to qualify my agreement with an entire post that you have writtne. Except to perhaps add an example of just how stupid some of these idiots are, and that we have them right here on this board. Everybody knows The Onion is satire and the very definition of "Fake News" but how many times has someone linked something from The Onion and gotten blow back by people who apparently believe anything and everything they read on the internet.
I am too lazy to do a search, but I wonder if Mari was one of those idjits who believed a story he read on The Onion?
Lately it’s hard for posts to get off the ground unless they begin with either, “I hate Trump” or “I love Trump.”
You must have missed the part where I stated “The content of the admission (by Bewkes) is not what is remarkable rather than who is saying it”. The details of or the extent that the Democrats have threatened the First Amendment is secondary to the fact that a head of one of the larger media producers believes the First Amendment is under assault and not by the Republicans. Admitting there are problems with the current implementation of the Fourth Estate has become more popular after the election and the critiques are coming from unexpected circles (CNN, NYT, etc.) and they are pointing in directions other than the Right. These are all welcome observations.
I also went on to say that “he stopped short of criticizing his own brands for their culpability”. This was in contrast to other recent Liberal critical appraisals (namely the NYT) that recently indicated they were going to attempt to be more introspective in their failings to uphold their commitment to a Fourth Estate that could be taken seriously.
The political parties are certainly part of the larger examination of a properly operating free press, but my main gripe by far is that the MSM has become a total disgrace
...thing more amazing is the fact that you continually post wrong information and are never deterred or embarrassed by how stupid you appear.
The only people who say "constitutional malice" are dummies who pretend to know the law by Googling stuff online. If you've ever set foot in a law school, you'd know the term was "actual malice" as set forth in the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan.
You say that the actual malice rule is "outdated." Why? You seem to think that it's outdated because of the "internet age" and "blogs." What does that have to do with the standard of actual malice? What's the difference between the NYT and an online blog? The only difference is that the mainstream media has "deep pockets" which is why they are sued for defamation and blogs are not.
You don't have a clue as to what "actual malice" is. It is the difference required in proving defamation by a private citizen and a public figure. A private citizen only has to prove a statement was false to win a defamation lawsuit. A public figure has to meet a higher standard - he has to prove that the press KNEW the statement was
false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the statement. A public figure has injected himself (or been injected) into the public eye so more latitude is given to the press and therefore a higher standard is required to prove defamation.
You said "libel laws are state laws." Another extremely stupid statement. States can make any laws they want as long as they don't conflict with the First Amendment or Supreme Court rulings interpreting the First Amendment. Go Google the Supremacy clause.
Stop embarrassing yourself and STFU about the law.
do some research before you make a fool of yourself-again.
Ok, your first assignment is to look up the difference between “common law malice” and “ constitutional malice” to see why not only “dummies” but also law review writers and California Judges often use the latter phrase rather than actual malice. I’ll even help you-“Establishing Constitutional Malice for Defamation…” 22 Loy. Ent. L.A. Rev. 377 (2001) and Mystery California Case (“The primary claim asserted by Nadel and Denney is that a government defendant in a defamation action is not protected by the First Amendment, and hence the New York Times standard of constitutional malice is inapplicable”).
Second, you need to reread my post which you got “ass backwards” apparently by overlooking the word “neither.”
Third, try to think if there is any difference between the New York Times and someone who publishes false news on a web site blog. The Ninth Circuit recently said bloggers get the same protection- but if you follow this case you can see the arguments to the contrary which I agree with.
Next time-consult a lawyer before you post. Or at least a fake one. LOL
looks like a stoner to me..
...yourselves on the grave of Antonin Scalia. He was an originalist, a believer in looking at the "four corners" of the Constitution. You reactionary righties don't believe in a living, breathing Constitution. If it ain't in there, it ain't constitutional. So how can you claim campaign contributions are "speech" as set forth in Citizens United? The Constitution says nothing about campaign contributions.
You can do it because you're hypocrites. When it comes to the Constitution, you pay lip service to the "four corners" doctrine EXCEPT when it comes to the Second Amendment. Every other part of the Constitution can be interpreted, especially when it's interpreted in your favor like Citizen's United, but don't touch the Second Amendment. That must NEVER be interpreted