A prominent federal court of appeals judge has just written a scathing dissenting opinion

saying that the New York Times and many of the media have become House organs for the

liberal wing of the Democratic Party that you cannot trust much of the media to give

you objective news and he would change the First Amendment rules on the New York Times

versus Sullivan to take this change into account. We'll talk about that on the Dershow and

we'll ask what do you think should the First Amendment be changed? Should New York Times

versus Sullivan be overruled because of the sins and lack of objectivity of the New

York Times and other media?

In the 1963 and 1964 Supreme Court term, I was privileged to be a law clerk. I was

a law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg who had been the Secretary of Labor and a very

distinguished labor lawyer. It was a great experience to be a law clerk on the Supreme

Court during the height of the civil rights movement and our chambers, Justice Goldberg's

chambers wrote a lot of the most important civil rights cases and civil liberties cases

including several important First Amendment cases and I helped to draft some of them.

One of the most important cases we had that term is now very famous. It's called New York

Times versus Sullivan. It involved an ad in the New York Times condemning sheriffs from

a southern area for abuse and it contained lots of mistakes. The times admitted that it

contained mistakes and issued a retraction admitting their errors. But one of the sheriffs

sued and the case came to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling

saying when a public figure is defamed and the sheriff was a public figure that in order

for him to win against the New York Times or any media, he has to show that the New York

Times engaged in constitutional malice, actual malice. Malice under the Constitution doesn't

...