7 ms·

Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. From the article: "We're not lo

Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. From the article: "We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses" I'm not saying that makes it right, but I see a difference between pushing for it as an independent agenda and using it to defend yourself from a legal filing. IANAL, but Legal arguments tend to be set up as: They are wrong because of argument 1, and even if you don't agree with argument 1 they are wrong because of argument 2, and so on through argument n. You include everything that's relevant in that list to preserve it for future appeals even if you have some pretty weak or controversial arguments.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort We live in a common law system [1]. Case law, regulatory proceedings, statutes and constitutions are all law. What ultimately matters is outcome. We don't know the details of the case they are defending against. We don't even know if there is one. Either way, there is lots of ground between "this right shouldn't apply here" and "you should take it away." Google chose the latter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
close04 8y ago
> but I see a difference between pushing for it as an independent agenda and using it to defend yourself from a legal filing > In filings in May 2017 and November 2018, obtained via Freedom of Information Act request, Alphabet Inc.’s Google urged the National Labor Relations Board to undo that precedent Are we going to pretend that "lobbying" and "urging" are different concepts? It simply represents their views, and they're trying to push them into reality. > Lobbying, persuasion, or interest representation is the act of attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials in their daily life, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Also, are we going to pretend that they are not actually doing this because a spokesperson used the right words in a PR statement? You can't claim to use it "just" as a defense but you don't actually want it or even believe in it. You do it because you want a specific outcome. And given the vile nature of Google in recent times I wouldn't expect better from them. P.S. Oh, double digit downvotes in just a few minutes on all comments I made in this thread. Nothing to see here. o_O P.P.S. And still rolling in as I edit. 10 downvotes in just 5-6 minutes for pointing out that OP is (deliberately) misrepresenting what the article states very clearly.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
908087 8y ago
Yes, I generally ignore carefully worded PR misdirection. I find it interesting that you found posting this weak defense so important that it compelled you to log in for the first time in over 2 years.
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  I see you found a way to call them a "shill" without saying it directly.
  - close04 8y ago
    Perhaps not a shill but definitely providing a distorted interpretation of what the article says as clearly as possible: Official filings > Google’s attorneys wrote that the 2014 standard “should be overruled” and a [...] precedent [...] should be reinstated. Google spokesperson > We're not lobbying for changes to any rules Reconciling this information into an opinion that only gives credit to PR words, while completely ignoring lawyers' actions is strange.
    - wang_li 8y ago
      Lobbying is talking to legislatures and regulators in an attempt to change laws/policy. Arguing in court is trying to do an end run around the legislatures and regulators. Big difference.
      - close04 8y ago
        > Arguing in court Lobbying is not limited to specific venues if that's what you mean. It's "attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials in their daily life, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies". Isn't the NLRB exactly such an agency, given its power to undo a precedent? Whether you do it by "urging" them in a justice court or "influencing" them on a tennis court it's still the same even when arguing semantics. Arguing in court that this specific case doesn't fall under the regulation is just arguing in court. Arguing to undo the regulation is literally lobbying. They are asking people with the power to regulate to undo regulation. Read this as you wish. Unless the Bloomberg article is misleading in the way it words the story then I believe my comment is pretty accurate.
pdpi 8y ago
> Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'd go as far as to say that this actually makes it _worse_, not better. Saying that that those protections are important is easy when there's nothing at stake. The fact that they then called for their overturn when the chips are down is how you know what they really think about it.
- koboll 8y ago
  It's silly to equate a legal defense with a belief though. I may not have the belief, personally, that spontaneous crimes of passion deserve a light sentence, but it would be malpractice for my lawyer to therefore not advance that argument if, god forbid, I was convicted of a murder. Whether I committed the murder or not, and whether or not I believe those sentencing guidelines should be extrapolated to wider society, as a lawyer you have an obligation to use every tool in your arsenal that can help your client. It has nothing to do with your own personal or political views on whether those tools should exist.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Assertions of certain politicians to the contrary, corporations are not people, and Google wasn't defending against a crime of passion.
    - koboll 8y ago
      Sure, I wrote a contrived example. But the onus, I think, is on the critics in this thread to provide the theory of legal ethics under which attorneys should refrain from advancing the most effective defense of their clients if doing so might cause public relations concerns. It's my understanding that zealously defending their clients within the bounds of the law is among an attorney's highest obligations.
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        In my view, the lawyer is absolutely obligated to present all viable (in their view) legal options to their client. But the buck stops with the client -- they decide which legal arguments to make.
resters 8y ago
The parent is pretty much textbook astroturfing. The idea that a company’s PR goals and legal strategy should somehow be divergent is itself the height of cynicism.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort We live in a common law system [1]. Case law, regulatory proceedings, statutes and constitutions are all law. What ultimately matters is outcome. We don't know the details of the case they are defending against. We don't even know if there is one. Either way, there is lots of ground between "this right shouldn't apply here" and "you should take it away." Google chose the latter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

close04 8y ago

> but I see a difference between pushing for it as an independent agenda and using it to defend yourself from a legal filing > In filings in May 2017 and November 2018, obtained via Freedom of Information Act request, Alphabet Inc.’s Google urged the National Labor Relations Board to undo that precedent Are we going to pretend that "lobbying" and "urging" are different concepts? It simply represents their views, and they're trying to push them into reality. > Lobbying, persuasion, or interest representation is the act of attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials in their daily life, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Also, are we going to pretend that they are not actually doing this because a spokesperson used the right words in a PR statement? You can't claim to use it "just" as a defense but you don't actually want it or even believe in it. You do it because you want a specific outcome. And given the vile nature of Google in recent times I wouldn't expect better from them. P.S. Oh, double digit downvotes in just a few minutes on all comments I made in this thread. Nothing to see here. o_O P.P.S. And still rolling in as I edit. 10 downvotes in just 5-6 minutes for pointing out that OP is (deliberately) misrepresenting what the article states very clearly.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

908087 8y ago

Yes, I generally ignore carefully worded PR misdirection. I find it interesting that you found posting this weak defense so important that it compelled you to log in for the first time in over 2 years.

SquareWheel 8y ago
I see you found a way to call them a "shill" without saying it directly.
- close04 8y ago
  Perhaps not a shill but definitely providing a distorted interpretation of what the article says as clearly as possible: Official filings > Google’s attorneys wrote that the 2014 standard “should be overruled” and a [...] precedent [...] should be reinstated. Google spokesperson > We're not lobbying for changes to any rules Reconciling this information into an opinion that only gives credit to PR words, while completely ignoring lawyers' actions is strange.
  - wang_li 8y ago
    Lobbying is talking to legislatures and regulators in an attempt to change laws/policy. Arguing in court is trying to do an end run around the legislatures and regulators. Big difference.
    - close04 8y ago
      > Arguing in court Lobbying is not limited to specific venues if that's what you mean. It's "attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials in their daily life, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies". Isn't the NLRB exactly such an agency, given its power to undo a precedent? Whether you do it by "urging" them in a justice court or "influencing" them on a tennis court it's still the same even when arguing semantics. Arguing in court that this specific case doesn't fall under the regulation is just arguing in court. Arguing to undo the regulation is literally lobbying. They are asking people with the power to regulate to undo regulation. Read this as you wish. Unless the Bloomberg article is misleading in the way it words the story then I believe my comment is pretty accurate.

pdpi 8y ago

> Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'd go as far as to say that this actually makes it _worse_, not better. Saying that that those protections are important is easy when there's nothing at stake. The fact that they then called for their overturn when the chips are down is how you know what they really think about it.

koboll 8y ago
It's silly to equate a legal defense with a belief though. I may not have the belief, personally, that spontaneous crimes of passion deserve a light sentence, but it would be malpractice for my lawyer to therefore not advance that argument if, god forbid, I was convicted of a murder. Whether I committed the murder or not, and whether or not I believe those sentencing guidelines should be extrapolated to wider society, as a lawyer you have an obligation to use every tool in your arsenal that can help your client. It has nothing to do with your own personal or political views on whether those tools should exist.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Assertions of certain politicians to the contrary, corporations are not people, and Google wasn't defending against a crime of passion.
  - koboll 8y ago
    Sure, I wrote a contrived example. But the onus, I think, is on the critics in this thread to provide the theory of legal ethics under which attorneys should refrain from advancing the most effective defense of their clients if doing so might cause public relations concerns. It's my understanding that zealously defending their clients within the bounds of the law is among an attorney's highest obligations.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      In my view, the lawyer is absolutely obligated to present all viable (in their view) legal options to their client. But the buck stops with the client -- they decide which legal arguments to make.

resters 8y ago

The parent is pretty much textbook astroturfing. The idea that a company’s PR goals and legal strategy should somehow be divergent is itself the height of cynicism.