If It's Good Enough For The New York Times . . .

Having the eyes of a kestrel, it was easy to find Kosling Conspiracy Theory No.___: Court Says FoxNews Can Subvert The Truth floating in the Web's premier cesspool of progressive group-think.

As Zwoof screeches

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Well, there they go again. There is a rule, it's settled law; and unless the US Supreme Court reverses itself, it's the Law of the Land.

How could a Kosling, the intellectual stalwarts of the Parallel Universe, overlook such an important - but inconvenient - truth?

A reasonable presumption would be that in 1964, a rather very progressive-dominated Supreme Court said that it was cool to distort the truth when it ruled in favor of The New York Times in the landmark decision, Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964), from which existing defamation laws in tort have evolved.

Respondent, an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed the jury that such statements were "libelous per se," legal injury being implied without proof of actual damages, and that for the purpose of compensatory damages malice was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the statements were found to have been published by them and to have related to respondent. As to punitive damages, the judge instructed that mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice and would not justify an award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be awarded, or that a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found for respondent and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Held: A State cannot under the First and Fourteenth Amendments award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" - that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

Who woulda thunk it? The Koslings are actually attacking the Warren Court.

UPDATE: Serendipity strikes again. Here's the perfect theme song for the Kooky Kult Kiddyz. Such mishegas, just in time for Daughter of COMINTERN, too.

Spokeswackos in Chicago for the Gathering of Moonbats were unavailable for comment.