4 ms·

Because Dave, Ron, Jeff, Mike, Josh and Chris would have a defamation suit filed by end-of-day. Clearly MA reached out to the attendees.. I wonder what the othe

Because Dave, Ron, Jeff, Mike, Josh and Chris would have a defamation suit filed by end-of-day. Clearly MA reached out to the attendees.. I wonder what the other 8 or 9 had to say. That's the other half of the story.

dotBen 16y ago
If Arrington lists a bunch of people were at a gathering, and they were, then there is nothing to sue over there. If he says "they were talking about pricing deals and how to club together to avoid convertable notes", and they were, then there is nothing to sue over even if he has named the people there. I don't actually get your comment. If we DON'T believe this group were talking about what Arrington is claiming then there is a bigger issue here regardless of whether people were named or not.
- bl4k 16y ago
  You go from lawsuit to settlement in a punctuation mark where in reality it is months/years and millions of dollars. Never give a person wealthier than you a reason to sue you - regardless of if you are wrong or right.
  - dotBen 16y ago
    I spent the earlier part of my career working for independent and free media and campaigning for free press. Of course you should never publish anything libelous or incorrect but it saddens me to no end to think that people wouldn't publish something that they could stand by as true, right and accurate simply because they were scared they might get sued. And certainly someone as the proprietor of a publication of record like TechCrunch (which while perhaps not the most whitest-of-white media outlet, still has something to stand for) owes it to his readership to do what's right. I guess it all comes down to why you are publishing in the first place - to communicate truth and facts or for power and ego (which sure, is hard to tell with TechCrunch at times)
    - bl4k 16y ago
      It is a process of journalism. He is using the story as leverage to fill in the remainder of the story. See how the Scamville story evolved. I think Arrington has shown time and again that he places the story and public interest above all else. To even suggest or insinuate that Arrington is only publishing this story to fuel his own ego is completely wrong. He likely burnt a lot of bridges with todays story and lost a lot of sources in order to give the public a very rare view of what takes place behind closed doors.
    - eavc 16y ago
      Keep in mind the purpose and tone of this article of his. He is not trying to merely state matters of fact. He is stating some matters of fact while also betting his reputation on a few matters of inference. Betting your reputation is one thing, but committing libel is something else. A safe article would have said, "I saw these people together. The end." To go beyond that, he'd need sources on tape. He may or may not have that, and even if he does, he may not feel like escalating this that quickly.

dotBen 16y ago

If Arrington lists a bunch of people were at a gathering, and they were, then there is nothing to sue over there. If he says "they were talking about pricing deals and how to club together to avoid convertable notes", and they were, then there is nothing to sue over even if he has named the people there. I don't actually get your comment. If we DON'T believe this group were talking about what Arrington is claiming then there is a bigger issue here regardless of whether people were named or not.

bl4k 16y ago
You go from lawsuit to settlement in a punctuation mark where in reality it is months/years and millions of dollars. Never give a person wealthier than you a reason to sue you - regardless of if you are wrong or right.
- dotBen 16y ago
  I spent the earlier part of my career working for independent and free media and campaigning for free press. Of course you should never publish anything libelous or incorrect but it saddens me to no end to think that people wouldn't publish something that they could stand by as true, right and accurate simply because they were scared they might get sued. And certainly someone as the proprietor of a publication of record like TechCrunch (which while perhaps not the most whitest-of-white media outlet, still has something to stand for) owes it to his readership to do what's right. I guess it all comes down to why you are publishing in the first place - to communicate truth and facts or for power and ego (which sure, is hard to tell with TechCrunch at times)
  - bl4k 16y ago
    It is a process of journalism. He is using the story as leverage to fill in the remainder of the story. See how the Scamville story evolved. I think Arrington has shown time and again that he places the story and public interest above all else. To even suggest or insinuate that Arrington is only publishing this story to fuel his own ego is completely wrong. He likely burnt a lot of bridges with todays story and lost a lot of sources in order to give the public a very rare view of what takes place behind closed doors.
  - eavc 16y ago
    Keep in mind the purpose and tone of this article of his. He is not trying to merely state matters of fact. He is stating some matters of fact while also betting his reputation on a few matters of inference. Betting your reputation is one thing, but committing libel is something else. A safe article would have said, "I saw these people together. The end." To go beyond that, he'd need sources on tape. He may or may not have that, and even if he does, he may not feel like escalating this that quickly.