In a controversial dissent stemming from a libel case, a Federal Judge has admitted that the Democrat Party is controlling the press in what he described as a “shocking bias against Republicans.”
“The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions,” the judge declared. “Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s….One-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy.”
The judge – who is a Reagan appointee – has observed that the ruling is a “threat to American Democracy” and called for it to be overturned.
He made the following comments:
“The increased power of the press is dangerously entrenched in today’s times since we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. A time was there when our court was about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas. However, it has turned out that the ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat,” he continued.
Silberman slammed the New York Times and the Washington Post as “virtually Democratic Party broadsheets.” He added: “Nearly all television — network and cable — is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”
Silberman also specifically decried Twitter’s decision prior to last fall’s election to ban links to a New York Post story relaying allegations about the contents of a computer that once belonged to Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden. The judge cited that as an example of how Silicon Valley “filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.”
The judge also took sides in the ongoing public debate about the duties of social media companies, arguing that they are morally obligated to allow free expression and a diversity of views. Arguments that the platforms are private businesses and not legally obliged to follow First Amendment standards may be right, the judge said, but don’t absolve social media outlets from engaging in what he termed “censorship.”
“Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power…is—I say this advisedly—fundamentally un-American,” Silberman wrote. “As one who lived through the McCarthy era, it is hard to fathom how honorable men and women can support such actions.”