4 ms·

Sounds a lot like a SLAPP suit, something John Oliver covered this week: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU

voxic11 7y ago
Does it though? Is there any evidence you have that this suite is being brought in order prevent public participation from snopes? The suite seems to be entirely about who is contractually owed the profits from advertising. This may be an abuse of the system but its not a SLAPP.
- grepthisab 7y ago
  Well, for one Snopes filed an anti slapp motion and the court fully granted it. If that's not evidence this is slapp, I don't know what is. "As part of our defense, Snopes and our CEO David Mikkelson filed separate anti-SLAPP motions against Proper Media, Richmond, and Schoentrup. Those motions were heard in August 2019, and they were both granted in their entirety, with the court striking claims related to defamation and the advancement of legal fees against both Snopes and Mr. Mikkelson."
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Since Snopes has already won an "anti-SLAPP" legal motion against Proper Media's defamation case against Snopes, I'd say that's evidence that Proper Media is abusing the system in a way that's subject to anti-SLAPP statutes. https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/06/anti-slapp.pdf https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/06/anti-slapp.pdf Snopes Prevails in Anti-SLAPP Motion. Truth is "an absolute defense to any libel action." SNOPES STAFF, PUBLISHED 16 AUGUST 2019. https://www.snopes.com/snopes-anti-slapp-motion/ https://www.snopes.com/snopes-anti-slapp-motion/ >Snopes filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Proper Media, Schoentrup, and Richmond, and as expected, the Snopes fact-checkers prevailed. The court held that the statements in question were true, were not defamatory, and/or were published outside the one-year statute of limitations, and therefore struck down the claims brought against Snopes based on those allegedly defamatory statements. Ironically, here's a Salon article about SLAPP lawsuits: Real free speech threat isn't on campus: Rich use courts to silence foes. How the wealthy use frivolous lawsuits to silence activists, journalists and even victims of sexual violence. AMANDA MARCOTTE. SEPTEMBER 12, 2018. https://www.salon.com/2018/09/12/real-free-speech-threat-isnt-on-campus-rich-use-courts-to-silence-foes/ https://www.salon.com/2018/09/12/real-free-speech-threat-isn...
  - voxic11 7y ago
    That was a separate lawsuit and as you mention they already won it.
    - DonHopkins 7y ago
      It was a successful "legal motion" "TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT" from Proper Media's defamation case, not a "suite" (sic) nor a "separate lawsuit" as you claim. You could try reading the document I linked to. It's all there in stark black and white: "By cutting off Snopes’ primary source of revenue and stymying its ability to pay legal fees, Plaintiffs hoped they could bring Snopes to its knees." ... "Plaintiffs’ claims are exactly what California’s anti-SLAPP statute is designed to prevent. This motion is proper because the challenged claims are a calculated effort by Plaintiffs to obtain an economic advantage over Snopes by expanding the scope of litigation, driving up legal costs, and chilling Snopes’ fundraising efforts." You said "The suite seems to be entirely about who is contractually owed the profits from advertising." It states quite clearly and addresses your point that that those profits from advertising were Snopes' primary source of revenue, which they used to pay their legal fees. Which is why they they won the anti-SLAPP motion. Do you still have any misunderstanding now?
DonHopkins 7y ago
The word "covered" doesn't quite capture the amount of spectacular production, dancing, singing, and cussing that went into John Oliver's elaborate exposition.

voxic11 7y ago

Does it though? Is there any evidence you have that this suite is being brought in order prevent public participation from snopes? The suite seems to be entirely about who is contractually owed the profits from advertising. This may be an abuse of the system but its not a SLAPP.

grepthisab 7y ago
Well, for one Snopes filed an anti slapp motion and the court fully granted it. If that's not evidence this is slapp, I don't know what is. "As part of our defense, Snopes and our CEO David Mikkelson filed separate anti-SLAPP motions against Proper Media, Richmond, and Schoentrup. Those motions were heard in August 2019, and they were both granted in their entirety, with the court striking claims related to defamation and the advancement of legal fees against both Snopes and Mr. Mikkelson."
DonHopkins 7y ago
Since Snopes has already won an "anti-SLAPP" legal motion against Proper Media's defamation case against Snopes, I'd say that's evidence that Proper Media is abusing the system in a way that's subject to anti-SLAPP statutes. https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/06/anti-slapp.pdf https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/06/anti-slapp.pdf Snopes Prevails in Anti-SLAPP Motion. Truth is "an absolute defense to any libel action." SNOPES STAFF, PUBLISHED 16 AUGUST 2019. https://www.snopes.com/snopes-anti-slapp-motion/ https://www.snopes.com/snopes-anti-slapp-motion/ >Snopes filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Proper Media, Schoentrup, and Richmond, and as expected, the Snopes fact-checkers prevailed. The court held that the statements in question were true, were not defamatory, and/or were published outside the one-year statute of limitations, and therefore struck down the claims brought against Snopes based on those allegedly defamatory statements. Ironically, here's a Salon article about SLAPP lawsuits: Real free speech threat isn't on campus: Rich use courts to silence foes. How the wealthy use frivolous lawsuits to silence activists, journalists and even victims of sexual violence. AMANDA MARCOTTE. SEPTEMBER 12, 2018. https://www.salon.com/2018/09/12/real-free-speech-threat-isnt-on-campus-rich-use-courts-to-silence-foes/ https://www.salon.com/2018/09/12/real-free-speech-threat-isn...
- voxic11 7y ago
  That was a separate lawsuit and as you mention they already won it.
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    It was a successful "legal motion" "TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT" from Proper Media's defamation case, not a "suite" (sic) nor a "separate lawsuit" as you claim. You could try reading the document I linked to. It's all there in stark black and white: "By cutting off Snopes’ primary source of revenue and stymying its ability to pay legal fees, Plaintiffs hoped they could bring Snopes to its knees." ... "Plaintiffs’ claims are exactly what California’s anti-SLAPP statute is designed to prevent. This motion is proper because the challenged claims are a calculated effort by Plaintiffs to obtain an economic advantage over Snopes by expanding the scope of litigation, driving up legal costs, and chilling Snopes’ fundraising efforts." You said "The suite seems to be entirely about who is contractually owed the profits from advertising." It states quite clearly and addresses your point that that those profits from advertising were Snopes' primary source of revenue, which they used to pay their legal fees. Which is why they they won the anti-SLAPP motion. Do you still have any misunderstanding now?

DonHopkins 7y ago

The word "covered" doesn't quite capture the amount of spectacular production, dancing, singing, and cussing that went into John Oliver's elaborate exposition.