5 ms·

On the other end of things, I think the libel laws in the US are actually way too weak. The impunity with which the news media tells outright lies that are high

On the other end of things, I think the libel laws in the US are actually way too weak. The impunity with which the news media tells outright lies that are highly damaging to people's reputation is alarming and dangerous to public discourse. CNN and many other outlets had headlines and articles saying that James Damore claimed that "women are biologically unfit for tech work". I can't imagine a more malicious and intentional misrepresentation, rising to outright fabrication, of what Mr. Damore wrote. Yet because Mr. Damore was a public figure (at least with regards to what he wrote), he would find it near impossible to succeed in suing the media corporations and others that smeared him with vicious lies, even though those lies are a major part of how he became a public figure in the first place. As for the case the EFF is writing about, I wish they would have explained the actual defamation and false light allegations. I suspect that with that information, the EFF's argument wouldn't seem as obviously correct as they portray it. Or perhaps not, but the glaring omission makes you wonder. EDIT: I'd like to add that monetary damages isn't necessarily the most important remedy for libel. If CNN had to have as their top story for a whole day an apology to Mr. Damore and admission that they lied, I think that could be an adequate remedy.

danso 9y ago
Speaking generally — to not debate the specifics of the Damore case —what you describe as “outright lies” could also be defended as being summarization or interpretation, i.e. reading between the lines. Should Republicans be sued because they claimed that Obama would support “death panels” and “death taxes” even though he literally never said those literal phrases?
- legostormtroopr 9y ago
  But those two instances are not equivalent. As a huge fan of public health care, from a country that has it, and has deep experience with the health care system, its a known fact that a public health system will establish a panel of experts to determine best treatment for a schedule of illnesses, in some cases there may be no "best option" for a terminal illness, so none is prescribed - hence "death panels" while emotive and a long bow to draw, at least in some sense accurate. But at the least these claims should be rebuked. I would challenge that Damore's memo in no way states anything close to "women are biologically unfit for tech work", something that was widely claimed. And instead said that reducing populations to averages to make such spurious claims is damaging, and that there maybe some biological root that explains part of the gap in engagement in tech between men and women that cause fewer women to want to join. So in this case, yes what was published against Damore, by media companies, was an "outright lie" and should be legally punished.
  - pfranz 9y ago
    That healthcare debate in the U.S. never had a single-payer program. For awhile it had a government option that was eliminated before the law passed. A "death panel [of] bureaucrats"[1] would be no more true after the ACA as it was before for insurance companies. The people who were using the Death Panel rallying cry were specifically talking about requiring "Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." This is different than what you're talking about and neither could describe that legislation as creating government death panels. It got many awards for "lie of the year." I also tried searching for your widely claimed quote > No results found for "women are biologically unfit for tech work". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel#Palin.27s_initial_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel#Palin.27s_initial_...
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      >I also tried searching for your widely claimed quote Didn't try hard enough. "Aren't biologically fit" is the same as "biologically unfit" and I am pretty certain I remember the exact latter phrase appearing on the CNN home page, which is transient and wouldn't show up on search results anyway. https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 "Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs"
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  "Death tax" is a colorful way to describe the estate tax, i.e. the tax levied on your estate when you die. That's not a lie by any means. I think your point is stronger for "death panels". But I don't think it's an outright lie to say that a government panel making decisions as to whether a particular medication is "comparatively effective" is making life and death decisions for some patients. When the FDA doesn't let terminally ill patients try a drug with a low chance of success, it is arguably acting as a death panel. And don't forget that a public option was on the table for Obamacare until final passage. The bill kept changing. A public insurer would definitely have a a board determining which treatments would be covered or not, i.e. a "death panel". https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203513204576047742746513406 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203513204576047...
  - vinhboy 9y ago
    > I don't think it's an outright lie You're being kind of bias and mincing words in order to prove your point. I read the google manifesto and I could easily summarize as what you said CNN did (which I can't find btw). I am not going to put it in quotes and say it came from the author's mouth, because that would be an "outright lie", but I am allowed to come to my own conclusions about things. "death panels" is a better example of an "outright lie". Because no such thing existed. No one wanted it. No one asked for it. It was created purely for propaganda. It's ridiculous to claim that medical advisory constitute a death panel.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - pfranz 9y ago
    The specific legislation both Betsy McCaughey and Sarah Palin pointed at to justify "death panels" said it "would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." (Section 1233) The "death panels" you're talking about have nothing to do with the legislation that it was libeling...which is probably why it was so effective to both uninformed people and educated people.
- belorn 9y ago
  In many places, politicians (ie public figures) have less rights concerning such things than private people. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Public_figure_doctrine_.28absence_of_malice.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Public_figure_doctr...) At the point when Gizmodo published the memo and later the New York Times, Damore was not a public figure. He became a public figure because of the media attention. As such those media networks would likely not be able to use the public figure defense in this case, but they can use the public figure defense in regard to Obama. To make a similar parallel, political satire is legal but if you do the exact same to a private person it would be harassment. The difference between the two is that one target a human being with the intent of doing personal harm, and the other targets a political role with the intent of creating discussion.
rl3 9y ago
>On the other end of things, I think the libel laws in the US are actually way too weak. That's a good thing. Strong libel laws result in something even less desirable: a veritable free speech dystopia where they're used by the wealthy and powerful corporations alike to silence investigative journalism, for example.[0][1] People blindly believing whatever they want to hear en massse from their favorite pundit or source is certainly one of the major challenges of our time, but it's not one that's best solved with stronger libel laws. Doing so would be tantamount to using nuclear weapons to solve poverty. [0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/12/angola-defamation-laws-silence-journalists https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/12/angola-defamation-laws-s... [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/o...
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  I share your general concern about preserving free speech. I'm fine with a standard that protects most lies. But I think Mr. Damore's case is one that should be over the legal line. FWIW, there are free speech absolutists, like the late Justice Scalia, who nonetheless share my concern about weak libel laws. How would you feel if the standard was lowered only for getting a court-mandated public apology, not monetary damages?
mikeash 9y ago
> No results found for "women are biologically unfit for tech work". Under these strengthened libel laws, would you be liable for this misquote?
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 "Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs" I remember the headlines on CNN.com using the phrase "biologically unfit", which is the exact same thing as "not biologically fit" anyway.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I just tossed it into Google.
    - nitrogen 9y ago
      Sometimes headlines are changed without notice. I previously worked on the same floor as a niche online magazine. Every now and then someone powerful from within the niche covered by the magazine would ask for things to be changed or removed, and the magazine had to comply.
flotillo 9y ago
Though Damore didn't say that directly, it is in part an underlying thesis of his essay. So it's not a complete summary of his paper, but it's also not an inaccurate one.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  It's really not. By that logic he was also saying men were biologically unfit for tech jobs. His point was that the distribution of personality traits is different in men and women, which accounts for the skewed gender distribution in the tech industry. Further, he was arguing that this could be at least partly mitigated by changing certain cultural and institutional aspects of the tech industry, to better leverage different personality types and actually improve the performance of Google. So no, it wasn't part of his underlying thesis and I question how you could think so if you actually read it. Perhaps you're just repeating what the commentariat told you he said?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    What is the difference between “women are biologically unsuited for tech jobs” and “the distribution of personality traits is different in men and women, which accounts for the skewed gender distribution in the tech industry”?
    - belorn 9y ago
      The difference between preference and ability is one indicate what a person want to do, and the second dictate what a person can do. For example, people of red hair have generally higher sensitivity to ultraviolet light["Variants of the melanocyte-stimulating hormone receptor gene are associated with red hair and fair skin in humans". Nature Genetics. 1995]. As a result a person with red hair will easier get sun burn and could very likely have a distribution that lean slightly away from professions which exposes the body to a lot of ultraviolet light. This do not mean that red hair color make someone unsuited to do outdoor work. A increased sensitivity to ultraviolet light is not a factor in a persona ability to perform work outdoor, only how comfortable such work would be.
forapurpose 9y ago
I don't agree with the premises of the parent comment: If a news publication lied about him then Damore does indeed have legal recourse. People, including public figures, sue news publications all the time, and some win. Examples: One reason the Harvey Weinstein story didn't get published for so long, despite the fact that he's clearly a public figure and many journalists investigated it over the years, is that there wasn't sufficient basis for the story to win in court if Weisenstein sued. You'll also recall that Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel actually put Gawker out of business. In journalism trade publications,[0] you can read that lawsuits are a big concern and considered a threat to the free press. I recently read that small news organizations can't publish investigations of wealthy people and organizations because, true or false, they cannot afford a legal defense. That is a threat to democracy. So Damore could sue if there was defamation (or slander or libel; I'm not sure of the distinction); why didn't he? Every target of an investigation tries to attack the media now; it's standard operating procedure, and Damore does nothing to distinguish himself. Why should I believe Damore? (This part of the discussion needs facts to back up claims.) Also, I'd be very careful about bringing down the news media when it takes down people we like; it's an essential institution that we need. If the rich and powerful can silence them, it would cripple democracy and liberty. > I can't imagine a more malicious and intentional misrepresentation It would be great to avoid hyperbole; it helps an intelligent discussion
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  An interesting possibility to me is keeping the current high standard if you want monetary damages, but lowering the standard for extracting a (prominent) public apology. I'm less concerned with putting people out of business as I am with making them suffer reputational harm in exchange for the reputational harm they inflict on others. That would also weaken their ability to harm more people in the future. What would you think about that?
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    I don't see it as needed because I disagree with the premise that there's a problem in general, and in particular with Damore. I see restrictions on journalism as very dangerous, especially in this particular time when the President of the U.S. is calling for them and many in the GOP support them. Beyond that, this whole discussion plays as part of the white supremacist narrative - do away with democracy and rights, including freedom of the press, because those things cause white supremacists to lose. But find reasonable-sounding arguments so that political oppression sounds like something to discuss. Which is what Damore tried to do with scientific citations and his posture as a victim - a white male with Harvard and Google on his resume.

danso 9y ago

Speaking generally — to not debate the specifics of the Damore case —what you describe as “outright lies” could also be defended as being summarization or interpretation, i.e. reading between the lines. Should Republicans be sued because they claimed that Obama would support “death panels” and “death taxes” even though he literally never said those literal phrases?

legostormtroopr 9y ago
But those two instances are not equivalent. As a huge fan of public health care, from a country that has it, and has deep experience with the health care system, its a known fact that a public health system will establish a panel of experts to determine best treatment for a schedule of illnesses, in some cases there may be no "best option" for a terminal illness, so none is prescribed - hence "death panels" while emotive and a long bow to draw, at least in some sense accurate. But at the least these claims should be rebuked. I would challenge that Damore's memo in no way states anything close to "women are biologically unfit for tech work", something that was widely claimed. And instead said that reducing populations to averages to make such spurious claims is damaging, and that there maybe some biological root that explains part of the gap in engagement in tech between men and women that cause fewer women to want to join. So in this case, yes what was published against Damore, by media companies, was an "outright lie" and should be legally punished.
- pfranz 9y ago
  That healthcare debate in the U.S. never had a single-payer program. For awhile it had a government option that was eliminated before the law passed. A "death panel [of] bureaucrats"[1] would be no more true after the ACA as it was before for insurance companies. The people who were using the Death Panel rallying cry were specifically talking about requiring "Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." This is different than what you're talking about and neither could describe that legislation as creating government death panels. It got many awards for "lie of the year." I also tried searching for your widely claimed quote > No results found for "women are biologically unfit for tech work". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel#Palin.27s_initial_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel#Palin.27s_initial_...
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    >I also tried searching for your widely claimed quote Didn't try hard enough. "Aren't biologically fit" is the same as "biologically unfit" and I am pretty certain I remember the exact latter phrase appearing on the CNN home page, which is transient and wouldn't show up on search results anyway. https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 "Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs"
marcoperaza 9y ago
"Death tax" is a colorful way to describe the estate tax, i.e. the tax levied on your estate when you die. That's not a lie by any means. I think your point is stronger for "death panels". But I don't think it's an outright lie to say that a government panel making decisions as to whether a particular medication is "comparatively effective" is making life and death decisions for some patients. When the FDA doesn't let terminally ill patients try a drug with a low chance of success, it is arguably acting as a death panel. And don't forget that a public option was on the table for Obamacare until final passage. The bill kept changing. A public insurer would definitely have a a board determining which treatments would be covered or not, i.e. a "death panel". https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203513204576047742746513406 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203513204576047...
- vinhboy 9y ago
  > I don't think it's an outright lie You're being kind of bias and mincing words in order to prove your point. I read the google manifesto and I could easily summarize as what you said CNN did (which I can't find btw). I am not going to put it in quotes and say it came from the author's mouth, because that would be an "outright lie", but I am allowed to come to my own conclusions about things. "death panels" is a better example of an "outright lie". Because no such thing existed. No one wanted it. No one asked for it. It was created purely for propaganda. It's ridiculous to claim that medical advisory constitute a death panel.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- pfranz 9y ago
  The specific legislation both Betsy McCaughey and Sarah Palin pointed at to justify "death panels" said it "would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." (Section 1233) The "death panels" you're talking about have nothing to do with the legislation that it was libeling...which is probably why it was so effective to both uninformed people and educated people.
belorn 9y ago
In many places, politicians (ie public figures) have less rights concerning such things than private people. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Public_figure_doctrine_.28absence_of_malice.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Public_figure_doctr...) At the point when Gizmodo published the memo and later the New York Times, Damore was not a public figure. He became a public figure because of the media attention. As such those media networks would likely not be able to use the public figure defense in this case, but they can use the public figure defense in regard to Obama. To make a similar parallel, political satire is legal but if you do the exact same to a private person it would be harassment. The difference between the two is that one target a human being with the intent of doing personal harm, and the other targets a political role with the intent of creating discussion.

rl3 9y ago

>On the other end of things, I think the libel laws in the US are actually way too weak. That's a good thing. Strong libel laws result in something even less desirable: a veritable free speech dystopia where they're used by the wealthy and powerful corporations alike to silence investigative journalism, for example.[0][1] People blindly believing whatever they want to hear en massse from their favorite pundit or source is certainly one of the major challenges of our time, but it's not one that's best solved with stronger libel laws. Doing so would be tantamount to using nuclear weapons to solve poverty. [0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/12/angola-defamation-laws-silence-journalists https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/12/angola-defamation-laws-s... [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/o...

marcoperaza 9y ago
I share your general concern about preserving free speech. I'm fine with a standard that protects most lies. But I think Mr. Damore's case is one that should be over the legal line. FWIW, there are free speech absolutists, like the late Justice Scalia, who nonetheless share my concern about weak libel laws. How would you feel if the standard was lowered only for getting a court-mandated public apology, not monetary damages?

mikeash 9y ago

> No results found for "women are biologically unfit for tech work". Under these strengthened libel laws, would you be liable for this misquote?

marcoperaza 9y ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 "Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs" I remember the headlines on CNN.com using the phrase "biologically unfit", which is the exact same thing as "not biologically fit" anyway.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I just tossed it into Google.
  - nitrogen 9y ago
    Sometimes headlines are changed without notice. I previously worked on the same floor as a niche online magazine. Every now and then someone powerful from within the niche covered by the magazine would ask for things to be changed or removed, and the magazine had to comply.

flotillo 9y ago

Though Damore didn't say that directly, it is in part an underlying thesis of his essay. So it's not a complete summary of his paper, but it's also not an inaccurate one.

marcoperaza 9y ago
It's really not. By that logic he was also saying men were biologically unfit for tech jobs. His point was that the distribution of personality traits is different in men and women, which accounts for the skewed gender distribution in the tech industry. Further, he was arguing that this could be at least partly mitigated by changing certain cultural and institutional aspects of the tech industry, to better leverage different personality types and actually improve the performance of Google. So no, it wasn't part of his underlying thesis and I question how you could think so if you actually read it. Perhaps you're just repeating what the commentariat told you he said?
- mikeash 9y ago
  What is the difference between “women are biologically unsuited for tech jobs” and “the distribution of personality traits is different in men and women, which accounts for the skewed gender distribution in the tech industry”?
  - belorn 9y ago
    The difference between preference and ability is one indicate what a person want to do, and the second dictate what a person can do. For example, people of red hair have generally higher sensitivity to ultraviolet light["Variants of the melanocyte-stimulating hormone receptor gene are associated with red hair and fair skin in humans". Nature Genetics. 1995]. As a result a person with red hair will easier get sun burn and could very likely have a distribution that lean slightly away from professions which exposes the body to a lot of ultraviolet light. This do not mean that red hair color make someone unsuited to do outdoor work. A increased sensitivity to ultraviolet light is not a factor in a persona ability to perform work outdoor, only how comfortable such work would be.

forapurpose 9y ago

I don't agree with the premises of the parent comment: If a news publication lied about him then Damore does indeed have legal recourse. People, including public figures, sue news publications all the time, and some win. Examples: One reason the Harvey Weinstein story didn't get published for so long, despite the fact that he's clearly a public figure and many journalists investigated it over the years, is that there wasn't sufficient basis for the story to win in court if Weisenstein sued. You'll also recall that Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel actually put Gawker out of business. In journalism trade publications,[0] you can read that lawsuits are a big concern and considered a threat to the free press. I recently read that small news organizations can't publish investigations of wealthy people and organizations because, true or false, they cannot afford a legal defense. That is a threat to democracy. So Damore could sue if there was defamation (or slander or libel; I'm not sure of the distinction); why didn't he? Every target of an investigation tries to attack the media now; it's standard operating procedure, and Damore does nothing to distinguish himself. Why should I believe Damore? (This part of the discussion needs facts to back up claims.) Also, I'd be very careful about bringing down the news media when it takes down people we like; it's an essential institution that we need. If the rich and powerful can silence them, it would cripple democracy and liberty. > I can't imagine a more malicious and intentional misrepresentation It would be great to avoid hyperbole; it helps an intelligent discussion

marcoperaza 9y ago
An interesting possibility to me is keeping the current high standard if you want monetary damages, but lowering the standard for extracting a (prominent) public apology. I'm less concerned with putting people out of business as I am with making them suffer reputational harm in exchange for the reputational harm they inflict on others. That would also weaken their ability to harm more people in the future. What would you think about that?
- forapurpose 9y ago
  I don't see it as needed because I disagree with the premise that there's a problem in general, and in particular with Damore. I see restrictions on journalism as very dangerous, especially in this particular time when the President of the U.S. is calling for them and many in the GOP support them. Beyond that, this whole discussion plays as part of the white supremacist narrative - do away with democracy and rights, including freedom of the press, because those things cause white supremacists to lose. But find reasonable-sounding arguments so that political oppression sounds like something to discuss. Which is what Damore tried to do with scientific citations and his posture as a victim - a white male with Harvard and Google on his resume.