6 ms·

EDIT: It seems like the sites can't be held responsible because they didn't create the false information, they just disseminated it. Leaving up the wrong part

by dx87 7y ago

EDIT: It seems like the sites can't be held responsible because they didn't create the false information, they just disseminated it. Leaving up the wrong part of my comment for context. The sites that ran articles quoting the garbage medium article should get sued over this. RMS lost his job and doesn't have anywhere to live because someone who never met him decided to write a hit piece instead of talking like an adult.

tptacek 7y ago
On what legal theory do you propose that sites who run articles quoting a Medium article should be sued? Before you say "libelslander", if that was your plan, you should do some reading about how libel in the US works.
- dx87 7y ago
  So here's what I found are generally the requirements for libel: False assertion of fact: There must be a false assertion of fact about a person; Communication: Such false statement was unprivileged and communicated or published to a third-party; Fault: There was fault on the part of the plaintiff, amounting to at least negligence; Damages: The statement or publication caused damage to the plaintiff or was ‘defamatory per se’ or ‘libelous per se’. So point for point: False assertion of fact: Sites wrote that RMS said the sex slaves were entirely willing to be sex slaves. Communication: It was published online for everyone to see. Fault: The sites didn't verify that he didn't actually say that, and were negligent in not doing any research beyond what was presented in the medium article. Damages: RMS lost his job and it appears he's currently homeless. How is what happened to him not considered libel?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    Ken White has covered this at length: you can't be sued for libel for quoting someone else's story. You have to be relating the veracity of the false facts yourself, based on your supposed knowledge of what happened. "I believe this story I read elsewhere" doesn't count.
    - dx87 7y ago
      Thanks, I hadn't heard of him. I'll ammend my top comment.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      That's a good point, but it's also not the entirety of what happened. See this Vice article https://archive.is/RVpdd https://archive.is/RVpdd : Selam Jie Gano, an MIT alum, posted on Medium about an email thread in which Stallman argued that the late Marvin Minsky—an AI pioneer accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Giuffre—had not actually assaulted anyone. Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. The second paragraph looks, to me, as if it's the author of the Vice article that's making the claim, not Selam Jie.
      - jcranmer 7y ago
        Note that Stallman probably qualifies as a public figure for the purposes of defamation law. At that point, meeting the bar of defamation requires showing malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth, which is quite a high bar to meet, and I don't believe it is met here.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    The precise phrasing and context is of ultimate importance in these cases. There's a huge difference between a false direct quote and an editorialized interpretation of someone's words.
- deogeo 7y ago
  https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ documents how RMS's words were twisted. The reporting was without doubt careless and misleading. Specifically, his she presented herself to him as entirely willing was re-phrased to then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be "entirely willing". 'Presented as' and 'be' are subtly, but critically different, so paraphrasing him like that is a lie. At the same time, it's close enough that it could be argued it's an honest mistake. Given how short the original quote was, I highly suspect the decision to trim it to a mere two words was malicious. But convincing a court it wasn't an honest mistake/misinterpretation would be difficult, and it's close enough to the truth that "reckless disregard for truth" wouldn't apply, I assume. Other publications repeated this, with titles such as Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were "Entirely Willing" - which is again false, as he neither defended Epstein (if you must interpret his statements as a defense, it was only for Minsky), nor did he claim the victims were willing. In sum, the reporting contained damaging false statements - did you have some specific reasoning why this wouldn't be libel (even if difficult to prove intent in practice)? Edit: Yes, I agree, merely quoting the initial article wouldn't be libel. However, many articles repeated the creatively re-contextualized RMS quote themselves, without attributing it to the original medium post, and made it look like it was something they themselves were stating.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I don't know enough about the original article to comment, and I'm not a lawyer, so my comment wouldn't be qualified anyways. I'm responding to the much broader argument made upthread, that any site that merely quoted the original story would be liable. That much I believe to be false, because, again, it's something Ken White has talked at length about, and Ken White is an expert.
  - wcr3 7y ago
    yup, i agree w/ your edit; looks like media dropped the ball and went for what'd sound most outrageous. which especially sucks bc the original medium post was very well (and earnestly) written. press coverage did a disservice to all those involved.
  - dkersten 7y ago
Crontab 7y ago
I think this shows the danger that anyone who posts under their real name faces. Make a bad joke, or hold a wrong opinion, and you can find yourself out of work.
- tptacek 7y ago
  Freedom of association is a hell of a drug.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - samantohermes 7y ago
    People aren't always rational or benevolent in their association choices.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      They still get to make those choices.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    It's interesting that the people who cite "freedom of association" as a justification for canceling people don't believe in freedom of association in other contexts, e.g. with respect to so-called "retalation" against corporate activists, which is just a company using its freedom of association. Freedom for me, but not for thee. I don't respect principles wielded selectively and as weapons.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      I don't know what you're talking about but also don't know how you can coherently make an argument that people both have freedom of association and can't "cancel" people. Is "cancellation" simply what you call it when people exercise their freedom in a way you don't approve of?

by dx87 7y ago

tptacek 7y ago

On what legal theory do you propose that sites who run articles quoting a Medium article should be sued? Before you say "libelslander", if that was your plan, you should do some reading about how libel in the US works.

dx87 7y ago
So here's what I found are generally the requirements for libel: False assertion of fact: There must be a false assertion of fact about a person; Communication: Such false statement was unprivileged and communicated or published to a third-party; Fault: There was fault on the part of the plaintiff, amounting to at least negligence; Damages: The statement or publication caused damage to the plaintiff or was ‘defamatory per se’ or ‘libelous per se’. So point for point: False assertion of fact: Sites wrote that RMS said the sex slaves were entirely willing to be sex slaves. Communication: It was published online for everyone to see. Fault: The sites didn't verify that he didn't actually say that, and were negligent in not doing any research beyond what was presented in the medium article. Damages: RMS lost his job and it appears he's currently homeless. How is what happened to him not considered libel?
- tptacek 7y ago
  Ken White has covered this at length: you can't be sued for libel for quoting someone else's story. You have to be relating the veracity of the false facts yourself, based on your supposed knowledge of what happened. "I believe this story I read elsewhere" doesn't count.
  - dx87 7y ago
    Thanks, I hadn't heard of him. I'll ammend my top comment.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    That's a good point, but it's also not the entirety of what happened. See this Vice article https://archive.is/RVpdd https://archive.is/RVpdd : Selam Jie Gano, an MIT alum, posted on Medium about an email thread in which Stallman argued that the late Marvin Minsky—an AI pioneer accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Giuffre—had not actually assaulted anyone. Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. The second paragraph looks, to me, as if it's the author of the Vice article that's making the claim, not Selam Jie.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      Note that Stallman probably qualifies as a public figure for the purposes of defamation law. At that point, meeting the bar of defamation requires showing malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth, which is quite a high bar to meet, and I don't believe it is met here.
- kube-system 7y ago
  The precise phrasing and context is of ultimate importance in these cases. There's a huge difference between a false direct quote and an editorialized interpretation of someone's words.
deogeo 7y ago
https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ documents how RMS's words were twisted. The reporting was without doubt careless and misleading. Specifically, his she presented herself to him as entirely willing was re-phrased to then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be "entirely willing". 'Presented as' and 'be' are subtly, but critically different, so paraphrasing him like that is a lie. At the same time, it's close enough that it could be argued it's an honest mistake. Given how short the original quote was, I highly suspect the decision to trim it to a mere two words was malicious. But convincing a court it wasn't an honest mistake/misinterpretation would be difficult, and it's close enough to the truth that "reckless disregard for truth" wouldn't apply, I assume. Other publications repeated this, with titles such as Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were "Entirely Willing" - which is again false, as he neither defended Epstein (if you must interpret his statements as a defense, it was only for Minsky), nor did he claim the victims were willing. In sum, the reporting contained damaging false statements - did you have some specific reasoning why this wouldn't be libel (even if difficult to prove intent in practice)? Edit: Yes, I agree, merely quoting the initial article wouldn't be libel. However, many articles repeated the creatively re-contextualized RMS quote themselves, without attributing it to the original medium post, and made it look like it was something they themselves were stating.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I don't know enough about the original article to comment, and I'm not a lawyer, so my comment wouldn't be qualified anyways. I'm responding to the much broader argument made upthread, that any site that merely quoted the original story would be liable. That much I believe to be false, because, again, it's something Ken White has talked at length about, and Ken White is an expert.
- wcr3 7y ago
  yup, i agree w/ your edit; looks like media dropped the ball and went for what'd sound most outrageous. which especially sucks bc the original medium post was very well (and earnestly) written. press coverage did a disservice to all those involved.
- dkersten 7y ago

Crontab 7y ago

I think this shows the danger that anyone who posts under their real name faces. Make a bad joke, or hold a wrong opinion, and you can find yourself out of work.

tptacek 7y ago
Freedom of association is a hell of a drug.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- samantohermes 7y ago
  People aren't always rational or benevolent in their association choices.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    They still get to make those choices.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  It's interesting that the people who cite "freedom of association" as a justification for canceling people don't believe in freedom of association in other contexts, e.g. with respect to so-called "retalation" against corporate activists, which is just a company using its freedom of association. Freedom for me, but not for thee. I don't respect principles wielded selectively and as weapons.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I don't know what you're talking about but also don't know how you can coherently make an argument that people both have freedom of association and can't "cancel" people. Is "cancellation" simply what you call it when people exercise their freedom in a way you don't approve of?