2 ms·

It's more important than you're implying, because it subjects the sites to discovery, which is quite burdensome. Avoiding that sort of trap is why we have SLAP

by Natsu 3y ago

It's more important than you're implying, because it subjects the sites to discovery, which is quite burdensome. Avoiding that sort of trap is why we have SLAPP laws.

loeg 3y ago
It's definitely true that the defendants would have preferred to have the case dismissed, even if they will win eventually (the process is painful and costly). But that isn't really what the clickbait headline says, is it?
- Natsu 3y ago
  Eh, it confuses what's actually stated in the ruling with the direct results of the ruling, which would be a trial on the merits of this, in which they'll have to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that they're not a link in the chain of whatever radicalized this guy. So I can see that it's misleading about what the ruling says, but not about the net effect of the ruling. But it actually links to the actual ruling here, so it still comes out as a C+ article over all, merely because of the terrible state of legal reporting.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Eh, it confuses what's actually stated in the ruling with the direct results of the ruling, which would be a trial on the merits of this, in which they'll have to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that they're not a link in the chain of whatever radicalized this guy. No, they won't necessarily. As the ruling makes clear, their Section 230 immunity claim is still live, but there are disputed questions of fact nexessary to resolve it. They only need to refute whatever proof is presented for causation if the plaintiff shows sufficient eveidence that they are a product in a manner not protected by Section 230 and they fail to refute that.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Avoiding that sort of trap is why we have SLAPP laws. SLAPP is irrelevant here, since this was not an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, it was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Natsu 3y ago
  I wasn't claiming that SLAPP applied, I was claiming that it's used to avoid even getting to discovery when it does apply, because even letting cases get that far is expensive.

by Natsu 3y ago

It's more important than you're implying, because it subjects the sites to discovery, which is quite burdensome. Avoiding that sort of trap is why we have SLAPP laws.

loeg 3y ago

It's definitely true that the defendants would have preferred to have the case dismissed, even if they will win eventually (the process is painful and costly). But that isn't really what the clickbait headline says, is it?

Natsu 3y ago
Eh, it confuses what's actually stated in the ruling with the direct results of the ruling, which would be a trial on the merits of this, in which they'll have to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that they're not a link in the chain of whatever radicalized this guy. So I can see that it's misleading about what the ruling says, but not about the net effect of the ruling. But it actually links to the actual ruling here, so it still comes out as a C+ article over all, merely because of the terrible state of legal reporting.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Eh, it confuses what's actually stated in the ruling with the direct results of the ruling, which would be a trial on the merits of this, in which they'll have to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that they're not a link in the chain of whatever radicalized this guy. No, they won't necessarily. As the ruling makes clear, their Section 230 immunity claim is still live, but there are disputed questions of fact nexessary to resolve it. They only need to refute whatever proof is presented for causation if the plaintiff shows sufficient eveidence that they are a product in a manner not protected by Section 230 and they fail to refute that.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Avoiding that sort of trap is why we have SLAPP laws. SLAPP is irrelevant here, since this was not an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, it was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Natsu 3y ago
I wasn't claiming that SLAPP applied, I was claiming that it's used to avoid even getting to discovery when it does apply, because even letting cases get that far is expensive.