>>As to freedom from press: Akre case. Fox news has won a major victory, it now has a legal right to publish whatever it is paid to lie, because freedom of speech protects them from any obligation to tell the truth. It is now legally the best news channel money can buy... money first, news later.
>>
>>Not that the others are much better... maybe dropping all pretenses and going blatantly the way of presscenary, or presstitute or whatever they prefer to be called, is more honest than maintaining the pretense of free press.
>
>I disagree with you about lies. Granted that Fox News has more conservative slant on the news, it is essential when outlets like CNN on NBC news anchor people perform Lewinsky on Obama {g}.

What's "a Lewinsky" - a blow job or a more expensive version of swiftboating through courts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre which leads to http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

It's not a slant. It's about spending a million dollars on a lawsuit to defeat "FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news" as "just a policy, not a law". If they find this so important to spend a million on it, then so do I. They put their money where they want it, to fight for the right to lie. For Monsanto, no less.