A federal judge condemned US media as ‘dangerous’ in his dissent to a defamation case

• A federal judge condemned legacy news outlets in a wide-ranging dissent issued on Friday.
• Federal appeals court Judge Laurence Silberman took issue with top US news outlets and Silicon Valley.
• Silberman dismissed legacy media outlets as "Democratic Party broadsheets."
• Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.

A federal judge issued a fiery dissent in a defamation case that condemned legacy US media outlets and attack a landmark legal precedent that strengthened defamation law and protection of the press as "a threat to American Democracy."

In his dissent, Judge Laurence Silberman accused several of the country's top news outlets of acting as "Democratic Party broadsheets" and operating with bias against the GOP.

The case between Global Witness, a human rights organization, and two Liberian officials, came after a report from the group said the officials could have taken bribes from Exxon while processing oil contracts. Silberman wrote in part that Global Witness made unfair conclusions in its report.

He went on to lambast the "power" of the press as "dangerous" and warned that "we are very close to one-party control of these institutions." The judge pointed to Fox News as an example of a few "notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control," but criticized news outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times.

"Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets," Silberman wrote, before taking aim at the Associated Press, "the news section of The Wall Street Journal," and "nearly all television."

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

In addition to news outlets, Silberman criticized tech companies and social media platforms like Twitter, which he said contributed to censorship.

"Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party," he wrote.

The judge, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, also argued to review the decision in New York Times v. Sullivan of 1964. In the case, the Supreme Court established that a plaintiff in a defamation case concerning a public figure must prove "actual malice" in reporting false information.

Silberman called the landmark decision, which strengthened the freedom and protection of the press, "a threat to American Democracy." He also referenced Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent in the 1964 case to lambast the result of the case as "a policy-driven decision."

"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," Silberman wrote. "Justice Thomas has already persuasively demonstrated that New York Times was a policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law."