3 ms·
As am I. The lawsuit doesn't doubt the legitimacy of Media Matters's experiment either, instead it just demeans it. Normally, the lawsuit template against slan
by dragontamer 3y ago
As am I. The lawsuit doesn't doubt the legitimacy of Media Matters's experiment either, instead it just demeans it.
Normally, the lawsuit template against slander is "The other guy was lying, they were malicious (or reckless) about it, and here's how it damaged us".
In this case, they have multiple paragraphs describing Media Matter's procedure, proving that the screenshots are real. That's a very weak case to stand upon IMO.
------------
I think Media Matter's defense is simple. The screenshots were real and we have a reason to believe they're representative of Twitter's engagement process.
How does this pass the bar of recklessness for Media Matters?
- minimaxir 3y agoMedia Matter's defense will most likely be filing for dismissal due to improper venue.
- meepmorp 3y agoCould you elaborate on why? I'd appreciate more perspective on the matter.
- dragontamer 3y agoMedia Matters exists in Washington DC. Twitter exists in Nevada. This court filing is in Texas for some reason, which is really strange.
- mikeyouse 3y agoThe ND of Texas is a famously right-wing Federal district - so litigants with marginal cases but causes sympathetic to conservatives "forum shop" to try to get in front of specific judges there. https://newrepublic.com/article/165730/northern-district-texas-judges-block-biden-policies https://newrepublic.com/article/165730/northern-district-tex...
- minimaxir 3y agoI am not a lawyer, but the argument that Media Matters/Eric Hananoki has personal jurisdiction in Texas (Point 19) is...a stretch. The real reason Elon is suing in Texas is politically motivated: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1726767436618191177 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1726767436618191177 EDIT: Ken White says that a change of venue would be unlikely to succeed: https://www.threads.net/@matthewrigdon/post/Cz42BAtp_X7 https://www.threads.net/@matthewrigdon/post/Cz42BAtp_X7
- aw1621107 3y ago> and we have a reason to believe they're representative of Twitter's engagement process. I'm not even sure they need to argue that, given the article itself doesn't seem to make any direct claims with respect to frequency of occurrence. Granted, I'm not exactly sure how implication is analyzed in defamation cases, but I don't think whatever implication may be present here is particularly strong, if that.