Clarence Thomas Is Turning Heads Across America—He Is Going After the Media and He Wants to Make It Easier for We the People to Sue Them

Justice Clarence Thomas has set the table, metaphorically speaking, for what could become the most important decision of this current Supreme Court session.

The court recently ruled against a Christian ministry trying to sue the Southern Poverty Law Center, which called it a “hate group.”

Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision and said an old ruling that protects the media needs to be overturned.

That ruling—a 1964 landmark freedom-of-the-press decision, New York Times v. Sullivan—held that the First Amendment protects newspapers even when they print false statements, as long as the newspapers did not act with “actual malice.”

However, nearly six decades later only a fool is unable to see harmful intent—“actual malice”—in any of the current Left biased media rags.

And suffice to say that whether malice is “actual,” overt, covert, or merely a promise of pleasure on a shit-house wall, if someone intends you harm and has the power of 1A behind them and/or their agency, you better look out.

From The Hill:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday expressed a desire to revisit a landmark 1964 ruling that makes it relatively difficult to bring successful lawsuits against media outlets for defamation.

Thomas wrote:

This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’

More recently, a Christian group sued the SPLC because by calling it a “hate group” the ministry was unable to receive donations through Amazon.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, based on a 1964 ruling that protects media outlets when they attack public figures.

This decision has given outlets the power to “cast false aspersions” on people and groups, according to Justice Thomas.

Unless a defendant can prove “malice” from the media, they have little chance of suing and clearing their name.

One rare exception was the case of Nick Sandmann, who was able to sue numerous outlets for how they portrayed him in the media.

Justice Thomas doesn’t believe the old 1964 ruling should stand, because it puts too much of a burden on people who have been blasted in the media.

News outlets have near immunity from reprisals for making defamatory statements. Only in rare cases can someone sue and get justice.

Here’s hoping Justice Thomas can convince his fellow justices to agree with him.

The mass propaganda media machine has grown into a multi-headed Hydra with too much power, too much bias, and too much corruption. The 1964 decision for them has become a license to impugn, slander, liable, physically and emotionally harm, and kill.

Final thought, a hope and a prayer: The Thomas Court, as I presume the Supreme Court will rightfully become and for all practical purposes is now, has been on a Justice Thomas-led holy terror this session.

Any other time I would say it is unlikely that the 1964 ruling will be overturned, but recent decisions and Justice Thomas’s presence gives me reason for hope and prayer that the mighty propaganda media beast will soon come crashing down.

God speed to Conservatism.

Justice Clarence Thomas has set the table, metaphorically speaking, for what could become the most important decision of this current Supreme Court session.

Related Posts