5 ms·
Tellingly, your comment offers no value judgement on the contents of the suit. This case is worth watching, IMO, as it’s 1) a judgement on whether there was jo
by dfee 3y ago
Tellingly, your comment offers no value judgement on the contents of the suit.
This case is worth watching, IMO, as it’s 1) a judgement on whether there was journalistic malpractice (is the suit valid?) and 2) an investigation into the finance trail of these sorts of campaigns (whether good or bad).
Perhaps there’s a chilling effect on other journalists, but I don’t think so. If X is wrong, it’d be too easy to drain them of cash.
- davidw 3y agoIt's bad enough when rich people use the legal system to try and silence criticism. It's far worse when they appear to be coordinating with the government to quash journalism.
- machdiamonds 3y ago"journalism"
- davidw 3y agoThe government isn't in the business of deciding what is or isn't good "journalism". That's kind of the point. Also, if it were so far from the truth, maybe those companies wouldn't have pulled their ads. They probably verified it themselves.
- smitty1e 3y ago> The government isn't in the business of deciding what is or isn't good "journalism". Need to let the facts come out in court under oath for better insight into which is the victim and which is the oppressor. The line between government, party, and activist seems to have blurred in the last couple of decades.
- Jimmc414 3y agoPerhaps you are right, but the same charge could be leveled against Media Matters if one is being intellectually honest.
- davidw 3y agoMedia Matters isn't the attorney general of one of the United States. It's a private organization.
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y agoThen it matters even more, because it shouldn't be that they can effectively ban anyone they dislike. So let them feel the lone stars strike. YEEEHAAW!
- nickthegreek 3y agoWho did MM ban and from where?
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y agoAs a figure of speech, they lashed out, to rob someones clout, no doubt. Because of other opinion, can't accept loss of their dominion. That aside, making anything Soros-funded cry out is a matter of honour, and giving me a hard boner o|o Thermonukular, in fäqqt.
- nickthegreek 3y agoSo no one was effectively banned from anything by MM. Got it.
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y agoThey tried to, by limiting outreach, which they felt they had lost, via the same channel. Channel gave the bird. They feel stirred. There is a feedback loop in action. Which stirs up even more shady things to emerge. Which is satisfying, because once emerged, for all to be seen, there is no denying, that one side is unclean.
- 3y ago
- brookst 3y agoAre you aware that there is no such thing as “journalistic malpractice”? And that any attempt to create such a thing to strip first amendment rights and allow retaliation by the government is a doomsday scenario for free press?
- dfee 3y agoGawker would disagree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
- mcmcmc 3y agoA civil suit bankrolled by a vindictive Peter Thiel does not establish a doctrine of “journalistic malpractice”
- cratermoon 3y agoThe lawsuit funded by Peter Thiel with the intention of bankrupting Gawker? That case was about invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and Gawker settled. The case said nothing about a supposed "journalistic malpractice"
- brookst 3y agoHey you should read that link you posted!
- etchalon 3y agoThere's no merit to the suit. MediaMatters reporting was accurate. The claim that "it was accurate, but lacked context", would open a flood gate of anti-journalistic suits. They've filed it in the "conservative cases do well here!" fifth circuit, but it's hard to see how this passes any defamation test.
- torstenvl 3y ago> They've filed it in the "conservative cases do well here!" fifth circuit Inaccurate, and lacked context. Texas is in the Fifth Circuit. There's literally nowhere else they could file a suit. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/styles/lead/public/circuit_map_in_agency_palette-full-size.png https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/styles/lead/pub... And nothing's been filed yet.
- eclipxe 3y agoWhy is there literally nowhere else to file a suit?
- torstenvl 3y agoIt occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted GGP's post, but if he's talking about the Texas Attorney General bringing some kind of claim on behalf of Texas, filing suit outside of Texas would be improper venue. (If talking about the X lawsuit, which I didn't even realize existed until just now, that's a tangential matter to the OP.)
- davidw 3y agoPeople seem to be kind of talking about both on the same thread. Seems kind of bad that government officials are cooperating so closely with a private business to take on the "enemies" of said business that people are conflating the two.
- davidw 3y agoX Corp is domiciled in Nevada, not Texas, it seems like: https://www.barrons.com/articles/twitter-nevada-musk-x-super-app-1f998f30 https://www.barrons.com/articles/twitter-nevada-musk-x-super...