3 ms·
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
by 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 agoDepends on if you think that freedom of speech should only be for multi-millionaires.
- xdennis 5y agoI'm not sure what you mean. Personally I believe that individuals should have more freedom of speech protections than corporations or media companies because of the power imbalance.
- dghlsakjg 5y agoI think what they're getting at is that defending yourself in court is not easy or free even if you have the truth on your side. A determined litigant can bury you in paperwork, costs, and other hindrances to the point that your speech is essentially surpressed. The OP case is a good example. Showing up to contest the requested inunction likely cost a lot more than the story is worth. J+J knew they were going to lose this, but they wanted to remind the publisher that they need a lawyer on speed dial. As much as journalists and editors claim they aren't cowed by this kind of behavior, you can bet that they will tread carefully around j+j in the future