5 ms·

A company complaining to editors? Routine crap. Hiring FTI to pose as a journalist? Hiring people to post fake reviews on a book you don't like? Seems illegal,

A company complaining to editors? Routine crap. Hiring FTI to pose as a journalist? Hiring people to post fake reviews on a book you don't like? Seems illegal, but I don't know. Are there US laws that prevent such actions?

sverige 7y ago
Even if there were such laws, they would be very difficult to enforce. Monsanto certainly isn't the only company that does this. I'm sure that fake book reviews are very common. Worse, there are entire subjects that have been pushed aside by interested parties systematically building a consensus through media that some topics are "discredited" or "unfounded" or "unproven" theories, or even "conspiracy theories," to the point where most people will automatically dismiss them if they are brought up in conversation. The difficulty is that if you don't have a direct interest in the subject, you are very unlikely to spend the energy to investigate the subject yourself and make an informed decision, and those who want to suppress backlash know that. "Roundup? I never use that stuff. Who cares?"
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  At this point it sorts of starts to be the collective responsibility of us all to not let these people win. If people knowledgeable about the subject remain silent, the message of the malicious actors becomes the signal in the noise.
stubish 7y ago
Possibly attempting to suppress evidence or similar laws against biasing court cases. It might even take down executives eventually; they knew, and they attempted to cover it up. It might not be illegal, but it can certainly be used as evidence to help prosecute things that are illegal.
mirimir 7y ago
IANAL, but I don't believe that a smear campaign against her would be illegal in the US. I mean, she's arguably a public figure, so a libel case wouldn't stand. Indeed, it would have been a better article if she had focused on how common this stuff is. And just used her own experience as the lead.
- pergadad 7y ago
  A company preparing a 20 point action plan on how to discredit someone doesn't seem normal or legal (if implemented) to me.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I mean, she's arguably a public figure, so a libel case wouldn't stand. No, it would just require evidence of actual malice: that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Is that true in the US? I thought that the bar was pretty high for public figures. I mean, consider what people say in political campaigns. Lies and malice (i.e., prevent their election) are common.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Is that true in the US? I thought that the bar was pretty high for public figures. “Actual malice” is a much higher bar than is generally in place for libel, but it is not an insurmountable bar. > I mean, consider what people say in political campaigns. Litigation over political campaign statements for defamation is fruitless for reasons aside from the legal standard to win a judgement; it takes to long to get a final verdict, but more importantly the litigation itself keeps whatever damaging claim you are trying to suppress at the center of the news, doing your opponents work for them.
      - mirimir 7y ago
        Thanks. So she (and others, similarly targeted) might at least get ~decent settlements. I guess that I was thinking about this in the context of SLAPP suits and assassinations (e.g., Karen Silkwood).

sverige 7y ago

Even if there were such laws, they would be very difficult to enforce. Monsanto certainly isn't the only company that does this. I'm sure that fake book reviews are very common. Worse, there are entire subjects that have been pushed aside by interested parties systematically building a consensus through media that some topics are "discredited" or "unfounded" or "unproven" theories, or even "conspiracy theories," to the point where most people will automatically dismiss them if they are brought up in conversation. The difficulty is that if you don't have a direct interest in the subject, you are very unlikely to spend the energy to investigate the subject yourself and make an informed decision, and those who want to suppress backlash know that. "Roundup? I never use that stuff. Who cares?"

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
At this point it sorts of starts to be the collective responsibility of us all to not let these people win. If people knowledgeable about the subject remain silent, the message of the malicious actors becomes the signal in the noise.

stubish 7y ago

Possibly attempting to suppress evidence or similar laws against biasing court cases. It might even take down executives eventually; they knew, and they attempted to cover it up. It might not be illegal, but it can certainly be used as evidence to help prosecute things that are illegal.

mirimir 7y ago

IANAL, but I don't believe that a smear campaign against her would be illegal in the US. I mean, she's arguably a public figure, so a libel case wouldn't stand. Indeed, it would have been a better article if she had focused on how common this stuff is. And just used her own experience as the lead.

pergadad 7y ago
A company preparing a 20 point action plan on how to discredit someone doesn't seem normal or legal (if implemented) to me.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I mean, she's arguably a public figure, so a libel case wouldn't stand. No, it would just require evidence of actual malice: that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Is that true in the US? I thought that the bar was pretty high for public figures. I mean, consider what people say in political campaigns. Lies and malice (i.e., prevent their election) are common.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Is that true in the US? I thought that the bar was pretty high for public figures. “Actual malice” is a much higher bar than is generally in place for libel, but it is not an insurmountable bar. > I mean, consider what people say in political campaigns. Litigation over political campaign statements for defamation is fruitless for reasons aside from the legal standard to win a judgement; it takes to long to get a final verdict, but more importantly the litigation itself keeps whatever damaging claim you are trying to suppress at the center of the news, doing your opponents work for them.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Thanks. So she (and others, similarly targeted) might at least get ~decent settlements. I guess that I was thinking about this in the context of SLAPP suits and assassinations (e.g., Karen Silkwood).