3 ms·

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

• 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this knowing there is an existing contractural agreement that Glenn is expressly allowed to publish elsewhere if they do not publish.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.