3 ms·

What position does Coffee have to not worry about these legal threats?

_zoltan_ 4y ago
faeriechangling 4y ago
His argument is that major outlets have more to lose than he does. If Coffeezilla goes down, then crypto scams won't be investigated anymore, but the investigations also have little point without naming and shaming, so the risk is essential to the very purpose of what he is doing. Whereas with the New York Times, if reporting about crypto scams lands them in enough legal trouble to make them unprofitable, the implications can be beyond investigations into crypto scams, it can undermine investigations into pretty much any aspect of society. They have more to lose and thus are naturally more risk adverse.
- comex 4y ago
  The thing is that these legal threats are usually empty, as far as the chances go of actually winning. There might be more cause for the concern in the UK or other countries, but in the US it's very hard for a public figure to win a libel suit, even if the reporting is sloppy, or even if the reporting contains substantial false information, as long as it wasn't done on purpose. That was established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. If the reporter is unlikely to have to hand money over via a judgement or settlement, that leaves the cost of hiring lawyers to defend the case. For an individual, that cost can still be ruinous, which is why so-called SLAPP suits really are a big problem. But an organization like the New York Times gets sued all the time. They have in-house counsel and paying them is part of the cost of doing business. In theory, the cost of defending more libel suits could still be problematic in aggregate. But the proof is in the pudding. The New York Times is constantly publishing negative articles about all sorts of people. Just looking at the front page and limiting to investigative reporting (not coverage of specific news events, and not editorials) of targets that could theoretically sue (not e.g. Putin): today there's an article on the owner of 4chan; yesterday there was one on Trump; the day before, one on a large hospital chain (which "spent years cutting jobs, leaving it flat-footed when the pandemic hit"); the day before that, an article naming several extremists attending a Young Republican Club event. And of course there are many other articles that people could take offense to; Sarah Palin recently lost a libel case against the NYT for a 2017 editorial.
  - akiselev 4y ago
    IANAL but I looked this up when the ElonJet story broke and even in states with very strong anti-SLAPP statutes, the defense can get really expensive really fast. In the California case Hill v. Heslep et al. the final legal cost to the defendants paid out after they won the anti-SLAPP motion was $104,747.75 [1]. Assuming half this cost was borne by the publisher and the rest was evenly split between the other three defendants, that's still tens of thousands of dollars and a lot of stress before the case is thrown out. Coffeezilla is playing with fire but I think with his reach he'd be successful with a legal defense fund as well as lawyers working pro bono and recovering their fees via the plaintiffs. [1] https://www.gibsondunn.com/recent-developments-in-california-anti-slapp-case-law-summer-2021/ https://www.gibsondunn.com/recent-developments-in-california...
richbell 4y ago
FTX is a good example: one of the investigative journalists he interviewed alleged that Bloomberg (I think, could be misremembering) refused to publish his articles critical of FTX because FTX was buying a lot of ads on their platform. There was also a journalist who uncovered substantial evidence linking the Royal Family and Jeffrey Epstein years ago. She was pressured to drop the story, in part because of potential financial and reputational repercussions to the place she was working.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  This sort of thing seems to happen around the British royal family a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal#Journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
- raphlinus 4y ago
  You're remembering right, and the accusation is in this video 3 weeks ago where he has Marc Cohodes accusing Bloomberg of spiking the story because it would be bad for (crypto) advertisers. A good news organization doing actual investigative journalism would have been able to get this story, if nothing else by following up tips such as these. A question which remains unanswered is: why didn't they? [1]: https://youtu.be/FDqhM7vHR2o?t=885 https://youtu.be/FDqhM7vHR2o?t=885
  - richbell 4y ago
    Thank you for digging that up and confirming! Not sure why it seems like your comment was downvoted.

His argument is that major outlets have more to lose than he does. If Coffeezilla goes down, then crypto scams won't be investigated anymore, but the investigations also have little point without naming and shaming, so the risk is essential to the very purpose of what he is doing. Whereas with the New York Times, if reporting about crypto scams lands them in enough legal trouble to make them unprofitable, the implications can be beyond investigations into crypto scams, it can undermine investigations into pretty much any aspect of society. They have more to lose and thus are naturally more risk adverse.

comex 4y ago
The thing is that these legal threats are usually empty, as far as the chances go of actually winning. There might be more cause for the concern in the UK or other countries, but in the US it's very hard for a public figure to win a libel suit, even if the reporting is sloppy, or even if the reporting contains substantial false information, as long as it wasn't done on purpose. That was established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. If the reporter is unlikely to have to hand money over via a judgement or settlement, that leaves the cost of hiring lawyers to defend the case. For an individual, that cost can still be ruinous, which is why so-called SLAPP suits really are a big problem. But an organization like the New York Times gets sued all the time. They have in-house counsel and paying them is part of the cost of doing business. In theory, the cost of defending more libel suits could still be problematic in aggregate. But the proof is in the pudding. The New York Times is constantly publishing negative articles about all sorts of people. Just looking at the front page and limiting to investigative reporting (not coverage of specific news events, and not editorials) of targets that could theoretically sue (not e.g. Putin): today there's an article on the owner of 4chan; yesterday there was one on Trump; the day before, one on a large hospital chain (which "spent years cutting jobs, leaving it flat-footed when the pandemic hit"); the day before that, an article naming several extremists attending a Young Republican Club event. And of course there are many other articles that people could take offense to; Sarah Palin recently lost a libel case against the NYT for a 2017 editorial.
- akiselev 4y ago
  IANAL but I looked this up when the ElonJet story broke and even in states with very strong anti-SLAPP statutes, the defense can get really expensive really fast. In the California case Hill v. Heslep et al. the final legal cost to the defendants paid out after they won the anti-SLAPP motion was $104,747.75 [1]. Assuming half this cost was borne by the publisher and the rest was evenly split between the other three defendants, that's still tens of thousands of dollars and a lot of stress before the case is thrown out. Coffeezilla is playing with fire but I think with his reach he'd be successful with a legal defense fund as well as lawyers working pro bono and recovering their fees via the plaintiffs. [1] https://www.gibsondunn.com/recent-developments-in-california-anti-slapp-case-law-summer-2021/ https://www.gibsondunn.com/recent-developments-in-california...

richbell 4y ago

FTX is a good example: one of the investigative journalists he interviewed alleged that Bloomberg (I think, could be misremembering) refused to publish his articles critical of FTX because FTX was buying a lot of ads on their platform. There was also a journalist who uncovered substantial evidence linking the Royal Family and Jeffrey Epstein years ago. She was pressured to drop the story, in part because of potential financial and reputational repercussions to the place she was working.

LarryMullins 4y ago
This sort of thing seems to happen around the British royal family a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal#Journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan...
raphlinus 4y ago
You're remembering right, and the accusation is in this video 3 weeks ago where he has Marc Cohodes accusing Bloomberg of spiking the story because it would be bad for (crypto) advertisers. A good news organization doing actual investigative journalism would have been able to get this story, if nothing else by following up tips such as these. A question which remains unanswered is: why didn't they? [1]: https://youtu.be/FDqhM7vHR2o?t=885 https://youtu.be/FDqhM7vHR2o?t=885
- richbell 4y ago
  Thank you for digging that up and confirming! Not sure why it seems like your comment was downvoted.