4 ms·

Does this explain why the tried to stop him from publishing elsewhere? Relevant section: >Worse, The Intercept editors in New York, not content to censor publi

Does this explain why the tried to stop him from publishing elsewhere? Relevant section: >Worse, The Intercept editors in New York, not content to censor publication of my article at the Intercept, are also demanding that I not exercise my separate contractual right with FLM regarding articles I have written but which FLM does not want to publish itself. Under my contract, I have the right to publish any articles FLM rejects with another publication. But Intercept editors in New York are demanding I not only accept their censorship of my article at The Intercept, but also refrain from publishing it with any other journalistic outlet, and are using thinly disguised lawyer-crafted threats to coerce me not to do so (proclaiming it would be “detrimental” to The Intercept if I published it elsewhere).

prawn 6y ago
Did you see them make that demand? Their wording that he published implied that it would be detrimental to The Intercept, which would be a fair claim. I think you can suggest it was careful pressure or negotiation, but it didn't read as a demand to me.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Language like that is setting up the basis for a lawsuit. It’s absolutely a demand not to publish it elsewhere. In fact it’s a thinly veiled threat if he does. You have to read this knowing there is an existing contractural agreement that Glenn is expressly allowed to publish elsewhere if they do not publish. So the only basis to stop him from doing that would be to allege it would be “damaging” if he did.
  - prawn 6y ago
    If he's confident in his reading of the contractual agreement, what's the issue? My read of the comment was as a negotiating point - they want to encourage a result but not make a legal demand. i.e., he can just ignore it if he doesn't have any consideration for The Intercept brand that they share.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      They have no legal basis for a demand. All they have is threats. And we know he was confident in his reading, as he went ahead and published.
      - watwut 6y ago
        It was not that and he even published that draft. If this reads as threat to you, then it will be hard to communicate with you anything negative without making you feel threatened.

prawn 6y ago

Did you see them make that demand? Their wording that he published implied that it would be detrimental to The Intercept, which would be a fair claim. I think you can suggest it was careful pressure or negotiation, but it didn't read as a demand to me.

zaroth 6y ago
Language like that is setting up the basis for a lawsuit. It’s absolutely a demand not to publish it elsewhere. In fact it’s a thinly veiled threat if he does. You have to read this knowing there is an existing contractural agreement that Glenn is expressly allowed to publish elsewhere if they do not publish. So the only basis to stop him from doing that would be to allege it would be “damaging” if he did.
- prawn 6y ago
  If he's confident in his reading of the contractual agreement, what's the issue? My read of the comment was as a negotiating point - they want to encourage a result but not make a legal demand. i.e., he can just ignore it if he doesn't have any consideration for The Intercept brand that they share.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    They have no legal basis for a demand. All they have is threats. And we know he was confident in his reading, as he went ahead and published.
    - watwut 6y ago
      It was not that and he even published that draft. If this reads as threat to you, then it will be hard to communicate with you anything negative without making you feel threatened.