3 ms·

Certainly you realize that buried lede is likely the reason the piece exists

kbenson 10y ago
Is the implication that this is only worth reporting about because of that case, and without the Supreme Court case this wouldn't have been reported at all? Or is it that it was only looked at in the first case because of the Supreme court case? I don't think the former is likely, this seems like news any way I look at it. As for the latter, that's possible, but I'm not sure what makes you think it's likely. Or perhaps you're trying to state something else I'm missing?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  My interpretation is that the case seeking to make these kinds of injunctions obligatory is likely what led someone to investigate what is going on with these injunctions in general, which then led to the discovery of what seemed like a strange pattern, which led to more research and hiring the PI; and therefore led to the reporting.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Yes, that corresponds to the second interpretation I outlined above, but the article specifically states "(Readers may remember this story, which we blogged about in August; that’s the incident that got us investigating this issue.)" with regard to the Mathew Chan story (link[1]). Maybe the implication is that they only looked at that because of the Supreme Court though, and then this article exists because of the Supreme Court case by way of the original article? In any case, it was ambiguous enough to me that I figured I would ask, as I would rather learn something interesting that I missed than assume I knew what everyone involved was thinking. :) 1: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2016/08/georgia-dentist-mitul-patel-takes-phony-litigation-scheme-to-new-extremes-as-a-way-of-suppressing-cr.html http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2016/08/georgia-dentist-mi...
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "Is the implication that this is only worth reporting about because of that case, and without the Supreme Court case this wouldn't have been reported at all? Or is it that it was only looked at in the first case because of the Supreme court case? " as the sibling comment says, Eugene is a law professor specializing in first amendment law. He almost certainly is reporting on it because of that case. Would it be worth reporting otherwise, yes, but definitely, the former is accurate. One of two things happened: 1. Either Eugene discovered it himself because he saw that case or 2. Someone notified Eugene of that case. My guess is his earlier blog posts let folks know he was interested in these issues, and someone emailed him this case, which got him investigating. (I'm sure if you bug him, he'll tell you, he's a nice guy)
  - nickodell 10y ago
    Number 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/a-tip-of-the-hat-to-matthew-chan-whose-call-helped-us-uncover-the-many-suspicious-internet-takedown-cases/?utm_term=.4238d72fc8de https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
CWuestefeld 10y ago
Yes, especially considering the by-line of the piece. Eugene Volokh isn't a WaPo reporter. He's the namesake of The Volokh Conspiracy, a blog that WaPo publishes; and also a law professor and leading expert on First Amendment law. EDIT: Prof. Volokh just posted in his blog a bit about how the piece came to be. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-vile-candidacy-is-chemotherapy-for-the-gop/2016/10/10/73e40f30-8f05-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-vile-c...
- kencausey 10y ago
  I have to think that this is the link you meant to post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/a-tip-of-the-hat-to-matthew-chan-whose-call-helped-us-uncover-the-many-suspicious-internet-takedown-cases/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    Thanks - that's an embarrassing clipboard mixup.

Is the implication that this is only worth reporting about because of that case, and without the Supreme Court case this wouldn't have been reported at all? Or is it that it was only looked at in the first case because of the Supreme court case? I don't think the former is likely, this seems like news any way I look at it. As for the latter, that's possible, but I'm not sure what makes you think it's likely. Or perhaps you're trying to state something else I'm missing?

dragonwriter 10y ago
My interpretation is that the case seeking to make these kinds of injunctions obligatory is likely what led someone to investigate what is going on with these injunctions in general, which then led to the discovery of what seemed like a strange pattern, which led to more research and hiring the PI; and therefore led to the reporting.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Yes, that corresponds to the second interpretation I outlined above, but the article specifically states "(Readers may remember this story, which we blogged about in August; that’s the incident that got us investigating this issue.)" with regard to the Mathew Chan story (link[1]). Maybe the implication is that they only looked at that because of the Supreme Court though, and then this article exists because of the Supreme Court case by way of the original article? In any case, it was ambiguous enough to me that I figured I would ask, as I would rather learn something interesting that I missed than assume I knew what everyone involved was thinking. :) 1: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2016/08/georgia-dentist-mitul-patel-takes-phony-litigation-scheme-to-new-extremes-as-a-way-of-suppressing-cr.html http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2016/08/georgia-dentist-mi...
DannyBee 10y ago
"Is the implication that this is only worth reporting about because of that case, and without the Supreme Court case this wouldn't have been reported at all? Or is it that it was only looked at in the first case because of the Supreme court case? " as the sibling comment says, Eugene is a law professor specializing in first amendment law. He almost certainly is reporting on it because of that case. Would it be worth reporting otherwise, yes, but definitely, the former is accurate. One of two things happened: 1. Either Eugene discovered it himself because he saw that case or 2. Someone notified Eugene of that case. My guess is his earlier blog posts let folks know he was interested in these issues, and someone emailed him this case, which got him investigating. (I'm sure if you bug him, he'll tell you, he's a nice guy)
- nickodell 10y ago
  Number 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/a-tip-of-the-hat-to-matthew-chan-whose-call-helped-us-uncover-the-many-suspicious-internet-takedown-cases/?utm_term=.4238d72fc8de https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

CWuestefeld 10y ago

Yes, especially considering the by-line of the piece. Eugene Volokh isn't a WaPo reporter. He's the namesake of The Volokh Conspiracy, a blog that WaPo publishes; and also a law professor and leading expert on First Amendment law. EDIT: Prof. Volokh just posted in his blog a bit about how the piece came to be. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-vile-candidacy-is-chemotherapy-for-the-gop/2016/10/10/73e40f30-8f05-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-vile-c...

kencausey 10y ago
I have to think that this is the link you meant to post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/a-tip-of-the-hat-to-matthew-chan-whose-call-helped-us-uncover-the-many-suspicious-internet-takedown-cases/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  Thanks - that's an embarrassing clipboard mixup.