5 ms·

No, it's actually a fact that Veritas is deceptive. They have been caught in the act of attempting to deceive multiple times. At some point you lose the benefit

by jolux 6y ago

No, it's actually a fact that Veritas is deceptive. They have been caught in the act of attempting to deceive multiple times. At some point you lose the benefit of the doubt with regards to your credibility.

unanswered 6y ago
How does "Project Veritas bad" erase the fact that the NYT argued in front of a judge that what is on its front page should be understood to be opinion and not fact, even when it appears in the form of facts? That claim has nothing at all to do with Project Veritas; the NYT just happened to say it in a related context.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pydry 6y ago
  Claiming first amendment rights is the easiest and lowest risk route to winning the case. What would be the point of fighting the case on the basis that you do not have rights that you actually do? Fox News also did the exact same thing on a similar lawsuit. It was used as a "gotcha" moment, but it still wasn't very meaningful.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Because there's a point where you end up going full ouruboros, which undermines the integrity of the institution all tpgether. The major established players want to be able to say other attempts at news outlets are deceptive, then turn around and do the same stuff, and yet still not be subject to the same loss of credibility.
    - stupendousyappi 6y ago
      I think public opinion is pretty clear at this point that no one cares about the specifics of the legal arguments made in any court cases other than lawyers and activists trying to gin up arguments for their side, and perhaps a very small number of people who care about the rule of law for its own sake. Everyone else just cares about the outcome of the case. No credibility is at stake, because 95% of the population has no interest in the contents of legal briefs.
      - smolder 6y ago
        I care that legal arguments aren't complete bullshit, actually. We need a justice system based in reason and in shared truths or we're just asking for society to collapse. No one wants to play Calvinball for very long.
  - unanswered 6y ago
    What part of my comment has anything to do with first amendment rights? What comment are you replying to?
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      A defamation case is inherently a question deeply rooted in first amendment rights. You can't really comment about project veritas suing the NYT without it having something to do with first amendment rights.
      - unanswered 6y ago
        Literally the entire point of my comment was that the NYT's claims have nothing to do with Project Veritas. Thus the comment itself has nothing to do with Project Veritas.
        ncallaway 6y ago
        Your comment was about the defamation case. You said: > the NYT argued in front of a judge that what is on its front page should be understood to be opinion and not fact, even when it appears in the form of facts That's a comment about the defamation case. The NYT was arguing the bounds of its 1A rights before the judge. When the person responded talking about the NYT arguing it's 1A rights, that's what they were talking about. Then you asked what your comment had anything do to with 1A rights, and I pointed out that a comment about the defamation case is inherently about 1A rights. So...it doesn't really matter that your commend had nothing to do with Project Veritas because the rest of the comment chain in response also has nothing to do with it.
        unanswered 6y ago
        My comment had nothing to do with the trial either. The trial is completely irrelevant. 1A is completely irrelevant because it only applies to the gov't. Free speech is completely irrelevant because I'm not suggesting or talking about something NYT is or is not allowed to do or say. None of this shit is relevant. You are just gishgalloping.
  - refurb 6y ago
    You’re ignoring the point. Winning the case is not the point. The fact NYT said they can make opinions appear as facts is.
marcusverus 6y ago
Let's say you're NYT counsel, and you're arguing this case. You have two arguments: Argument 1) This isn't libel because it's true, and Argument 2) This isn't libel because we're allowed to lie to our readership. Argument 1 causes you no reputational harm. Arguement 2 is an announcement to the world that you've abdicated all journalistic integrity. Do you make argument 2 if you're confident in argument 1? Regardless, argument 1 must not be bullet proof, because their motion to dismiss was rejected and the suit is moving forward.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- matthewmcg 6y ago
  Argument 2 states that the times can’t be liable as a matter of law, regardless of the facts. Argument 1 requires a more detailed inquiry into the facts. If argument 2 works for purposes of a quick motion to dismiss, and argument 1 requires discovery and possibly a trial, you’ll make argument 2 first, and if that fails, mount the much more expensive side defense based on argument 1.
- staticman2 6y ago
  Corporations are not actually people so it's not clear why the statements of the lawyer should reflect on the reputation of a paper the lawyer didn't produce. If I told you Apple had dirty bathrooms, would you conclude the Iphone engineers are bad at making phones?
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > Regardless, argument 1 must not be bullet proof, because their motion to dismiss was rejected This shows a misunderstanding of what the motion to dismiss adjudicates. Argument 1 cannot win on a motion to dismiss, because it's an argument over the facts. Argument 1 is absolutely irrelevant in a motion to dismiss. Argument 2 is the only argument you can raise in a motion to dismiss. At the motion to dismiss stage you are only arguing questions of the law. You assume the facts as alleged by the plaintiff in the complaint, and then state that given those facts there is still no legal issue that can be remedied.
- 6y ago
blfr 6y ago
NYT tried to make this point. Judge disagreed. > The New York Times also attempted a Hail Mary claim that Project Veritas was “libel proof.” We have previously discussed such claims as very hard to establish. The court correctly and quickly dispensed with that claim by the New York Times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26612987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26612987

by jolux 6y ago

unanswered 6y ago

How does "Project Veritas bad" erase the fact that the NYT argued in front of a judge that what is on its front page should be understood to be opinion and not fact, even when it appears in the form of facts? That claim has nothing at all to do with Project Veritas; the NYT just happened to say it in a related context.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pydry 6y ago
Claiming first amendment rights is the easiest and lowest risk route to winning the case. What would be the point of fighting the case on the basis that you do not have rights that you actually do? Fox News also did the exact same thing on a similar lawsuit. It was used as a "gotcha" moment, but it still wasn't very meaningful.
- salawat 6y ago
  Because there's a point where you end up going full ouruboros, which undermines the integrity of the institution all tpgether. The major established players want to be able to say other attempts at news outlets are deceptive, then turn around and do the same stuff, and yet still not be subject to the same loss of credibility.
  - stupendousyappi 6y ago
    I think public opinion is pretty clear at this point that no one cares about the specifics of the legal arguments made in any court cases other than lawyers and activists trying to gin up arguments for their side, and perhaps a very small number of people who care about the rule of law for its own sake. Everyone else just cares about the outcome of the case. No credibility is at stake, because 95% of the population has no interest in the contents of legal briefs.
    - smolder 6y ago
      I care that legal arguments aren't complete bullshit, actually. We need a justice system based in reason and in shared truths or we're just asking for society to collapse. No one wants to play Calvinball for very long.
- unanswered 6y ago
  What part of my comment has anything to do with first amendment rights? What comment are you replying to?
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    A defamation case is inherently a question deeply rooted in first amendment rights. You can't really comment about project veritas suing the NYT without it having something to do with first amendment rights.
    - unanswered 6y ago
      Literally the entire point of my comment was that the NYT's claims have nothing to do with Project Veritas. Thus the comment itself has nothing to do with Project Veritas.
      - ncallaway 6y ago
        Your comment was about the defamation case. You said: > the NYT argued in front of a judge that what is on its front page should be understood to be opinion and not fact, even when it appears in the form of facts That's a comment about the defamation case. The NYT was arguing the bounds of its 1A rights before the judge. When the person responded talking about the NYT arguing it's 1A rights, that's what they were talking about. Then you asked what your comment had anything do to with 1A rights, and I pointed out that a comment about the defamation case is inherently about 1A rights. So...it doesn't really matter that your commend had nothing to do with Project Veritas because the rest of the comment chain in response also has nothing to do with it.
        unanswered 6y ago
        My comment had nothing to do with the trial either. The trial is completely irrelevant. 1A is completely irrelevant because it only applies to the gov't. Free speech is completely irrelevant because I'm not suggesting or talking about something NYT is or is not allowed to do or say. None of this shit is relevant. You are just gishgalloping.
- refurb 6y ago
  You’re ignoring the point. Winning the case is not the point. The fact NYT said they can make opinions appear as facts is.

marcusverus 6y ago

Let's say you're NYT counsel, and you're arguing this case. You have two arguments: Argument 1) This isn't libel because it's true, and Argument 2) This isn't libel because we're allowed to lie to our readership. Argument 1 causes you no reputational harm. Arguement 2 is an announcement to the world that you've abdicated all journalistic integrity. Do you make argument 2 if you're confident in argument 1? Regardless, argument 1 must not be bullet proof, because their motion to dismiss was rejected and the suit is moving forward.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
matthewmcg 6y ago
Argument 2 states that the times can’t be liable as a matter of law, regardless of the facts. Argument 1 requires a more detailed inquiry into the facts. If argument 2 works for purposes of a quick motion to dismiss, and argument 1 requires discovery and possibly a trial, you’ll make argument 2 first, and if that fails, mount the much more expensive side defense based on argument 1.
staticman2 6y ago
Corporations are not actually people so it's not clear why the statements of the lawyer should reflect on the reputation of a paper the lawyer didn't produce. If I told you Apple had dirty bathrooms, would you conclude the Iphone engineers are bad at making phones?
ncallaway 6y ago
> Regardless, argument 1 must not be bullet proof, because their motion to dismiss was rejected This shows a misunderstanding of what the motion to dismiss adjudicates. Argument 1 cannot win on a motion to dismiss, because it's an argument over the facts. Argument 1 is absolutely irrelevant in a motion to dismiss. Argument 2 is the only argument you can raise in a motion to dismiss. At the motion to dismiss stage you are only arguing questions of the law. You assume the facts as alleged by the plaintiff in the complaint, and then state that given those facts there is still no legal issue that can be remedied.
6y ago

blfr 6y ago

NYT tried to make this point. Judge disagreed. > The New York Times also attempted a Hail Mary claim that Project Veritas was “libel proof.” We have previously discussed such claims as very hard to establish. The court correctly and quickly dispensed with that claim by the New York Times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26612987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26612987