IF YOU DON’T LIKE THOSE PRINCIPLES, WE HAVE OTHERS: Here’s the hilarious part: the law firm who defended Backpage’s right to assist in sex trafficking of underage women is also the law firm for The New York Times, HBO, The Daily Beast, Forbes and many other media entities. And very close contributors to Hillary “I’m With Her” Clinton.

I KNOW IT SOUNDS NUTSO: But I rather like this sentiment she expressed:

“She added that gun issues need to be addressed, but the “real thing that needs to be addressed are issues of the heart.”

Talk about burying the lede.

PRE-DEMONIZATION OF CENTER-RIGHT MEDIA: Much has been written about the MSM freakout regarding Sinclair here, and here. What’s happening is this is nothing more than a campaign from the left to demonize Sinclair so that readers avoid it, and more importantly, relegate it to their list of “must ignore” platforms, like InfoWars or GatewayPundit. It’s a pre-emptive move to further control the narrative and censor by repudiation what you see and hear.

Two important facts (known in the media business but pointedly ignored) are first, CNN sells a service called CNN Newservice to stations around the country, and customers repeat CNN’s scripts verbatim. Conan O’Brien discovered this as a source of humor as long ago as 2013.

The second fact is that even on more “serious” matters, like editorials, The Fair Media Counsel reports an anecdote from a former Tribune (now “Tronc”) journalist:

Sinclair isn’t the only organization to do such a thing, but it is perhaps the most visible and unapologetic in its approach. In the not-so-obvious file was this personal experience: When the FCC was considering raising the ownership cap, all Tribune-owned newspapers were told to run an editorial in support of the action. (The same editorial, by the way.) I had written a letter to the editor in opposition of that point of view. My letter was rejected, with a brief explanation: Tribune was not allowing letters with opposing points of view on that particular subject.

Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas? It’s been abandoned in the culture wars. In the new media marketplace, if you use center-right currency, your money — and your ideas — are no good here.

HOW COPYRIGHT LAW GOT WEAPONIZED: My Daily Caller Op/Ed from today.  You can’t criticize what you can’t hear.
**Bumped from early morning**

COPYRIGHT LAW AS A POLITICAL WEAPON: My Daily Caller Op/Ed this week, explaining how the DMCA is used to silence political speech.

GUESS THAT PARTY, PART DEUX: “Judge accused of breaking into home, swiping ‘soiled’ women’s panties.” Hint.

Gotta be fair…

LET’S PLAY “GUESS THAT PARTY”! Today’s contestant, The Boston Globe: “Senator Rosenberg’s husband, Bryon Hefner, indicted on assault, lewdness charges.”

STEAMING BOWL OF WRONG REJECTED: “Judge Denies Mueller Request for Protective Order.” Referenced earlier here,  Judge T.S. Ellis III said that Mueller’s request was insufficiently specific in describing the information to be subject to the requested protective order, which is, in the circumstances, excessively broad:

“Dismissing Mueller’s request as “anemic,” Ellis went on to say the “current proposed protective order throws an unnecessarily broad cloak of secrecy over documents and information to be disclosed in discovery. And this is so especially given that the indictment in this case charges defendant with engaging in conspiracies that begin as long ago as 2005 and ended in 2014.”

We the people, own the courts and its contents, not Manafort, and certainly not the Department of Justice or Special Counsels.

TODAY’S BIG STEAMING BOWL OF WRONG: Courthouse News reporting that “Mueller Seeks Protective Order of Discovery in Manafort’s Va. Case.” Despite the headline, it’s not just Mueller:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and attorneys for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort can agree on one thing – any evidence unearthed in discovery should be privy to a protective order.

Of course, it’s not uncommon for litigants to request that discovery materials be sealed, and to speed things along, judges too often rubber-stamp these requests. It gets tricky because raw discovery is in most states not a “judicial document” enjoying the presumption of public access. But when one of the parties relies on that document for a substantive motion, they often try to use the “confidential” designation to hide that part of the pleading and redact public copies. This in turn, requires citizen groups or reporters to hire lawyers, intervene in the case, and file substantive motions arguing that the public interest requires disclosure. I’ve done it many times and it can delay the public’s right to know by months.

Raw discovery is not filed with the court, but pleadings and motions are. We the people, own the courts and its contents, not Manafort, and certainly not the Department of Justice or Special Counsels.

***UPDATED AND BUMPED UP***

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG? Reuters reporting that “The government defined fake news as “news, information, data and reports which is or are wholly or partly false” and included features, visuals and audio recordings. The law, which covers digital publications and social media, would apply to offenders outside Malaysia, including foreigners, if Malaysia or a Malaysian citizen were affected.”

Gee, someone should write about the danger of this kind of legislation.

BURIED IN 12th GRAF: “…praised by fellow Democrats.”
It’s all about the children, you know.

DAILY CALLER OP/ED: “Collusion, Corrections And ZOMBIE FACTS That Refuse To Die” How corrections are handled — and mishandled — in online news and how it creates Zombie Facts.
*Bumped up from morning*

MY WEEKLY DAILY CALLER COLUMN IS UP: “Collusion, Corrections And ZOMBIE FACTS That Refuse To Die.” A look into how corrections are handled — or mishandled — and the effect it has on readers and our collective knowledge.

FOX, HENHOUSE, ETC: Last month, holier-than thou Oxfam was embroiled in a scandal with staff accused of using charitable funds to buy prostitutes. Now the head of another British charity admitted five indecent and serious sexual assaults on a child under 16 and was sentenced to six years and eight months.

Beware the pious.

YOUR CHEAP SHOT OF THE WEEK: Huffington Post encourages mocking the encouragement of women in science. Oh, it’s Ivanka. SUSPEND YOUR PRINCIPLES! The column is slugged “Humor” but I think *this* is actually funnier.

I GOT NUTHIN’: D.C. lawmaker says recent snowfall caused by ‘Rothschilds controlling the climate’.

Jews again. Is there nothing we can’t do?

TASTELESS IDEA OF THE YEAR: Headline writers of America, please go with this: “From Twitter to the Sh*tter.” I mean this story changes so much, I expect the next rumor is that they fired him during a sex change operation.

THOMAS PAINE GOT IT RIGHT: My weekly column at the Daily Caller is up, and it explains why we need a Federal Anti-SLAPP law to protect citizens speaking out against government actors and powerful interests. Because when you think about it, free speech is a core conservative value.

No less a figure than George Washington proclaimed in 1783 that “The freedom of Speech may be taken away—and, dumb & silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”

As Glenn says: “Read the whole thing.”™

BEING SYMPATHETIC IS NOT ENOUGH: ABC reports that the family of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, who was killed in 2016, has filed a lawsuit against Fox News and others, citing in their complaint “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress” (among other tort claims).

Now, you’d have to be a pretty cold-blooded monster to not feel sorry for any family who loses a son to violence. And playing amateur psychologist for a moment, it’s equally plausible that in an unsolved murder, the grieving parents would seek to hold someone responsible for something.

In light of the Supreme Court’s Snyder v. Phelps ruling, though, I don’t see how this case has much change to get out of the starting gate as a matter of law. In that case, a family who lost a son in combat were mortified at the Westboro Baptist Church holding odious and offensive protests at the funeral, including holding signs that read “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Fag troops.” Pretty ugly stuff. I’d be offended too.

That said, the Supremes got it right:

“Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

As sympathetic and truly victimized as the family is, allowing this kind of tort claim to apply to news reports opens the floodgates for every snowflake on the left or puritanical prude on the right to sue media for merely “offensive” speech, even if it is incorrect.

*Disclosure: I was on the team of media lawyers who filed an amici brief in the Supreme Court urging the rejection of such claims.*

ETHICS GUIDELINES? THAT’S FOR LITTLE PEOPLE: The Washington Post, to its credit, established social media guidelines as long ago as 2011. (The New York Times only followed suit last year). Those guidelines seem to be founded on a self-image of honest and brave truth-seeking reporters able to separate their own biases from what they tweet, lest the sterling reputation of The Washington Post be sullied:

Social-media accounts maintained by Washington Post journalists — whether on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or elsewhere — reflect upon the reputation and credibility of The Washington Post’s newsroom…we must be ever mindful of preserving the reputation of The Washington Post for journalistic excellence, fairness and independence. Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything — including photographs or video — that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism.

This morning Twitchy reports that Washington Post “congressional reporter” Erica Werner certainly has some strong feelings on Mike “Benghazi bomb-thrower” Pompeo as Secretary of State and Gina “torture overseer” Haspel as CIA director, and tweeted out the following:

“A Benghazi bomb-thrower will be SecState and a torture overseer will be CIA director — IF CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE”

Now, if she were a columnist, I’d have no beef with this, after all, opinions are what they are paid to write. But when a “congressional reporter” resorts to this kind of slimery, well, she just gives the public more reasons to distrust her reporting — and that of The Post in general.

It’s a good thing there’s an Ombudsman or Public Editor there to keep an eye on these things. Oh, wait…
**UPDATE: ORIGINAL TWEET FLUSHED DOWN MEMORY HOLE**

TRUTH EVENTUALLY WINS OUT: As far back as 2009, moral deity, overall supergenius and carbon footprint monster Paul Krugman told us lesser mortals that:

“In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.”

Really? Says a victim of the NHS in one “scare story” from the Socialist-leaning Guardian:

“I was expecting to get the treatment, but they gave me a form requesting a British passport, so that was the end of that,” he said. Thompson has never had a British passport, and was not aware he needed one. The Jamaican passport he arrived with was lost many years ago…The lady wasn’t at all polite. She said you have to produce it or pay £54,000. I said: ‘Oh my god, I don’t have 54 pence, let alone £54,000.’”

Krugman uses the word “false.” I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

**Link fixed**

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHY DON’T THEY MAKE PINK PUSSY HIJABS?:
This is one of those res ipsa loquitur thingies. Linda Sarsour could not be reached for comment.

NARRATIVE-MAKING, SELECTIVE FACTS AND BIAS: The Los Angeles Times has an overview about billionaire Vinod Khosla’s legal battle to prevent public access to the beach on his California property. The paper notes that “The California Coastal Act for decades has scaled back mega-hotels, protected wetlands and, above all, declared that access to the beach was a fundamental right guaranteed to everyone.”

The newspaper goes on to point out that:

He has defended a number of conservative positions, such as arguing against same-sex marriage and leading the legal challenge against President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

So, perpetuating a popular narrative, obviously this is yet another conservative fatcat being greedy, denying fundamental rights and just generally being a bad, bad man. What Rosanna Xia, who covers the environmental beat for the paper forgot/missed/hid from the public (take your pick) is something that took literally 2 minutes to find out: Khosla and his companies have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to a wide range of Democratic PAC’s and candidates over the years, including Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party of Virginia and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to Federal Election Commission records.

It’s not uncommon for the wealthy to hedge their bets and throw money at both parties, but the Times does a disservice by not including this fact. Laziness, rush of the deadline, or purposeful avoidance: you be the judge. But it’s clear in whatever excuse is applied that what you leave out is often as important as what you say.

TRADING BLOOD FOR INK: My column this week at Daily Caller, about putting the acrimonious relationship between Trump and press in perspective. Here’s a taste:

“Rachel Maddow can smirk all she likes here in the safety of the US, but she would last for about 10 minutes in the UAE or Bahrain[…]To those who would worry about Maddow’s safety at a Trump rally here in the United States, I’d put her chances at surviving at about the same or better as Sean Hannity showing up at a Black Lives Matter or Antifa rally.”

DEEP-STATE LOGIC AT WORK: In one of the most insane arguments ever made by government lawyers, the CIA is claiming that even though they leaked complete documents to favored reporters, those documents are still not subject to disclosure to the public at large under FOIA. According to Techdirt:

“[T]he CIA would like to be able to selectively leak classified information while retaining the privilege of denying every other member of the public access to these leaks. If the selected journalists choose to publish classified info handed to them by the CIA, only then does it enter the public domain, according to the the CIA. Otherwise, the CIA will decide what’s classified and withholdable, not judges or logic or common sense.”

The intelligence community hates leakers, unless it’s the agencies themselves doing the leaking.