9 ms·

So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their tim

So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.

theknocker 5y ago
Dwelve 5y ago
Why not both?
Retric 5y ago
Here is a recent successful injunction delaying publication: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.h... Though it didn’t last long.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  It lasted all about two weeks and the judge basically embarrassed himself by granting it in the first place. He reversed himself in anticipation of being bench slapped by the appellate court. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge-does-expected-gets-rid-prior-restraint-order-against-mary-trump-allows-her-to-publish-her-book.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge... (note that in New York, the lower courts are the "Supreme Court", very confusing). But you're right, there's always a judge stupid enough out there to do something outrageously illegal.
reaperducer 5y ago
the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this I wouldn't be surprised. My mother worked for the VP a company that was involved in a lawsuit that went on for decades. It was commonly known in the company that the lawsuit was being deliberately dragged out for the benefit of the opposition's lawyers, and that the case was even handed down as a kind of sick inheritance from father-to-son as people retired. I've only been involved in a court case once. I was picked as a juror in a case where two divorce lawyers were suing each other over how to split the fee from a high-profile divorce. I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies. " It seems the incentive for lawers as a group is, make everything more complicated for everyone else, so everyone else is more dependant on lawers to do anything at all.
  - aaronchall 5y ago
    Although I know I'm wrong 99% of the time I sometimes get that feeling about my fellow programmers when I look at code...
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Yeah, there is probably truth in that, too. I did hear people complain about some new UI/UX, on how it makes it too easy for nontechnical people to use it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- GeoAtreides 5y ago
  Ah yes, the other J&J: Jarndyce and Jarndyce.
throwaway09223 5y ago
"you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something." You can't, in theory. In practice this sort of thing happens all the time. I had a judge issue a clearly unconstitutional order limiting my speech (there was no action on my part leading up to this, it was a broad order applying to more than just me). My lawyer's take was that while it was clearly not allowed, it wasn't particularly important so best to just ignore it. It's really, really common.
- dv_dt 5y ago
  That makes we wonder how many essentially invisible to the public cases this kind of restraint we have in the system. It seem like all it takes is a plausible legal theory that could be dragged out combined with enough financial clout to make the defendant give.
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    This same judge said something along the lines of "there are no limits on my ability to issue orders until an appeals court overturns them." He was keenly aware that the issue wasn't significant enough to appeal and that his power was essentially unchecked. Lawyers are very aware of this dynamic.
    - daenz 5y ago
      This is why it is so important to have wise judges that are held to a very high moral standard.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        ... and, in jurisdictions that allow it, for the public to bother to research judges and vote them in our out of office.
        dv_dt 5y ago
        In an area where I can vote for judges, I do google searches on all the candidates and rarely get good information. If you’re lucky you can get some very rudimentary assessment of if they have any legal background at all. But to really research a judge candidate I think would take access to a legal case database and a fairly sophisticated understanding of law, and far too much time.
fulafel 5y ago
Reuters is a UK company and freedom of press is quite limited there. But a US federal judge of course would be the wrong party to turn to for leveraging this.
- bitcharmer 5y ago
  > freedom of press is quite limited there Could you please be more specific? Because I've lived here for a long time and I'd call this statement utter BS.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    The UK doesn't in general protect "free speech". While most things you can say, there are a bunch of things that will land you in prison, even if they are true.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      I didn't think it was ever illegal to say things that were true, justified, and in the public interest to have spoken. Could you give some examples (or point me at the relevant laws) please?
      - fulafel 5y ago
        Having to prove those things in court, under threat of penalties, is quite a big damper on freedom of press.
        xdennis 5y ago
        I don't think that having some proof is too much to ask. Press freedom is important because it can keep in check the other branches of power. But it shouldn't be so free as to be able to publish known lies.
        pessimizer 5y ago
cmeacham98 5y ago
> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. You can if you are the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States
- mdoms 5y ago
  Is J&J the government?
  - addajones 5y ago
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    No, they aren't. I was disputing GP's generalized claim that preventing publishing is "about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law", not this specific case.
HWR_14 5y ago
> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law. A lot of contracts people sign (NDAs and federal security clearance paperwork being the two examples that spring to mind) include clauses allowing a judge to issue a prior restraint injunction if you try to violate them.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Civil law is a bit different. Nobody ever goes to jail for violating an NDA. What you can have happen is be found to be in breach of contract and obligated to follow the consequences of that breach (including possibly restitution for damaging the aggrieved party). The bar in civil law is lower because the penalties are generally money, and correction is simple if an error is later found (move that money back). Criminal law involves deprivation of liberty and other penalties that can't be reversed (can't give a person back the years in prison).
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Many NDAs include language preventing just what you said, and allowing one party to seek an injunction from a judge preventing disclosure and a breach. Violating a judges injunction will usually result in jail time, not just a fine.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      The injunction is for violating the criminal penalty of trade secret theft. That injunction can be applied whether or not you signed an NDA. (It's a bit nonsense that we as a country let corps get laws passed to make "trade secret theft" criminal, but it is what it is).
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        You're discussing a different law. You can, and many people do (with or without realizing it), sign contracts that allow a judge to issue an injunction if the company even suspects you will violate the NDA. You then can go to jail if you violate the injunction. You could write a similar contract allowing an injunction to prevent anything else.
pseingatl 5y ago
Nevertheless, injunctions have issued. Given Assange & Wikileaks, it is silly to pretend that it cannot happen. The Espionage Act exists, as do laws prohibiting commercial espionage as well.
mherdeg 5y ago
> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law. Isn't there certain Project Veritas info that the NYT is currently forbidden from publishing? did I misunderstand? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/business/media/nyt-project-veritas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/business/media/nyt-projec...

theknocker 5y ago

Dwelve 5y ago

Why not both?

Retric 5y ago

Here is a recent successful injunction delaying publication: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.h... Though it didn’t last long.

legalcorrection 5y ago
It lasted all about two weeks and the judge basically embarrassed himself by granting it in the first place. He reversed himself in anticipation of being bench slapped by the appellate court. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge-does-expected-gets-rid-prior-restraint-order-against-mary-trump-allows-her-to-publish-her-book.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge... (note that in New York, the lower courts are the "Supreme Court", very confusing). But you're right, there's always a judge stupid enough out there to do something outrageously illegal.

reaperducer 5y ago

the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this I wouldn't be surprised. My mother worked for the VP a company that was involved in a lawsuit that went on for decades. It was commonly known in the company that the lawsuit was being deliberately dragged out for the benefit of the opposition's lawyers, and that the case was even handed down as a kind of sick inheritance from father-to-son as people retired. I've only been involved in a court case once. I was picked as a juror in a case where two divorce lawyers were suing each other over how to split the fee from a high-profile divorce. I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies. " It seems the incentive for lawers as a group is, make everything more complicated for everyone else, so everyone else is more dependant on lawers to do anything at all.
- aaronchall 5y ago
  Although I know I'm wrong 99% of the time I sometimes get that feeling about my fellow programmers when I look at code...
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Yeah, there is probably truth in that, too. I did hear people complain about some new UI/UX, on how it makes it too easy for nontechnical people to use it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
GeoAtreides 5y ago
Ah yes, the other J&J: Jarndyce and Jarndyce.

throwaway09223 5y ago

"you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something." You can't, in theory. In practice this sort of thing happens all the time. I had a judge issue a clearly unconstitutional order limiting my speech (there was no action on my part leading up to this, it was a broad order applying to more than just me). My lawyer's take was that while it was clearly not allowed, it wasn't particularly important so best to just ignore it. It's really, really common.

dv_dt 5y ago
That makes we wonder how many essentially invisible to the public cases this kind of restraint we have in the system. It seem like all it takes is a plausible legal theory that could be dragged out combined with enough financial clout to make the defendant give.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  This same judge said something along the lines of "there are no limits on my ability to issue orders until an appeals court overturns them." He was keenly aware that the issue wasn't significant enough to appeal and that his power was essentially unchecked. Lawyers are very aware of this dynamic.
  - daenz 5y ago
    This is why it is so important to have wise judges that are held to a very high moral standard.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      ... and, in jurisdictions that allow it, for the public to bother to research judges and vote them in our out of office.
      - dv_dt 5y ago
        In an area where I can vote for judges, I do google searches on all the candidates and rarely get good information. If you’re lucky you can get some very rudimentary assessment of if they have any legal background at all. But to really research a judge candidate I think would take access to a legal case database and a fairly sophisticated understanding of law, and far too much time.

fulafel 5y ago

Reuters is a UK company and freedom of press is quite limited there. But a US federal judge of course would be the wrong party to turn to for leveraging this.

bitcharmer 5y ago
> freedom of press is quite limited there Could you please be more specific? Because I've lived here for a long time and I'd call this statement utter BS.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  The UK doesn't in general protect "free speech". While most things you can say, there are a bunch of things that will land you in prison, even if they are true.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    I didn't think it was ever illegal to say things that were true, justified, and in the public interest to have spoken. Could you give some examples (or point me at the relevant laws) please?
    - fulafel 5y ago
      Having to prove those things in court, under threat of penalties, is quite a big damper on freedom of press.
      - xdennis 5y ago
        I don't think that having some proof is too much to ask. Press freedom is important because it can keep in check the other branches of power. But it shouldn't be so free as to be able to publish known lies.
        pessimizer 5y ago

cmeacham98 5y ago

> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. You can if you are the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States

mdoms 5y ago
Is J&J the government?
- addajones 5y ago
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  No, they aren't. I was disputing GP's generalized claim that preventing publishing is "about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law", not this specific case.

HWR_14 5y ago

> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law. A lot of contracts people sign (NDAs and federal security clearance paperwork being the two examples that spring to mind) include clauses allowing a judge to issue a prior restraint injunction if you try to violate them.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Civil law is a bit different. Nobody ever goes to jail for violating an NDA. What you can have happen is be found to be in breach of contract and obligated to follow the consequences of that breach (including possibly restitution for damaging the aggrieved party). The bar in civil law is lower because the penalties are generally money, and correction is simple if an error is later found (move that money back). Criminal law involves deprivation of liberty and other penalties that can't be reversed (can't give a person back the years in prison).
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Many NDAs include language preventing just what you said, and allowing one party to seek an injunction from a judge preventing disclosure and a breach. Violating a judges injunction will usually result in jail time, not just a fine.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    The injunction is for violating the criminal penalty of trade secret theft. That injunction can be applied whether or not you signed an NDA. (It's a bit nonsense that we as a country let corps get laws passed to make "trade secret theft" criminal, but it is what it is).
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      You're discussing a different law. You can, and many people do (with or without realizing it), sign contracts that allow a judge to issue an injunction if the company even suspects you will violate the NDA. You then can go to jail if you violate the injunction. You could write a similar contract allowing an injunction to prevent anything else.

pseingatl 5y ago

Nevertheless, injunctions have issued. Given Assange & Wikileaks, it is silly to pretend that it cannot happen. The Espionage Act exists, as do laws prohibiting commercial espionage as well.

mherdeg 5y ago

> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law. Isn't there certain Project Veritas info that the NYT is currently forbidden from publishing? did I misunderstand? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/business/media/nyt-project-veritas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/business/media/nyt-projec...