Will the Supreme Court uphold the New York Times’ License to Lie?

The 1964 New York Times Vs. Sullivan decision proclaimed that publishing falsehoods against politicians and public figures was not actionable unless reckless disregard for the truth was shown, essentially giving the Corporate Media a license to lie.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has long spoken out against the decision, arguing the ruling broke sharply from the common law of libel.

In its 2019 article by Trip Gabriel A Timeline of Steve King’s Racist Remarks and Divisive Actions,  the New York Times accused VDARE Editor Peter Brimelow of being an “open white nationalist.”

However, Brimelow has never openly advocated for white nationalism.

The Times tacitly admitted its error by stealth-editing the article to merely say “white nationalist,” while linking to the Southern Poverty Law Center as evidence to the claim.

But no acknowledgement was ever made in print, contrary to the paper’s ethical standards.

We sued for libel. Our suit has now made it to the Supreme Court, and we are continuing this litigation first and foremost because we’re arguing about a fact, not an opinion: The Times lied.

And cases have to be brought to give judges a chance to opine and law professors something to analyze, like water building up behind a dam, VDARE is contributing to this build-up that may see the 1964 Sullivan decision finally reversed.

Speaking of breaking down dams, our case also has the opportunity to get racial differences in IQ into the courtroom.

The SPLC, who the New York Times defers to in their accusations of white nationalism, made its case by pointing to VDARE articles on the scientific evidence for racial differences in IQ. We believe such evidence does exist, and is entirely legitimate.

Ironically, NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall repeatedly noted it while arguing Brown vs. Board—claiming, however, that it was the result of segregation and that the black-white gap would disappear if segregation were eliminated.

(This has not happened, by the way).

By the time you see this video, the Supreme Court may have already made its decision.

Read the full update from VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow here.

VDARE is banned on YouTube! Follow us on alternative video platforms:
Gab TV
Bitchute
Rumble
Odysee