4 ms·

> One District Court judge ruled against a similar suit: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/26/judge-preliminarily-blo https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/26/judge

> One District Court judge ruled against a similar suit: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/26/judge-preliminarily-blo https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/26/judge-preliminarily-blo... Thanks for the link. The lawsuit looks slightly different to me. They blocked a CID request where they got a request for a bunch of data about their operations. The requester did not manage to make a good case as to why that request had merit and therefore should not get counted as abusive. The X lawsuit directly alleges that media matters tried to cause financial harm. It looks like X simply made a better argument as to why they had a good case against Media Matters. > As far as I know, Media Matters never represented that n% of major advertisers' ads were shown next to racist content, just that some ads were, and that seems undisputed. I had understood it like this as well. Musk alleges that they got the example through contrived means and that they did it purely to hurt X financially. I do not think he will win but I do think the case merits examination.

hn_acker 2y ago
>> As far as I know, Media Matters never represented that n% of major advertisers' ads were shown next to racist content, just that some ads were, and that seems undisputed. > I had understood it like this as well. Musk alleges that they got the example through contrived means and that they did it purely to hurt X financially. I'm not sure about the other claims that X/Twitter alleges, but (in the US) succeeding on the claim of business disparagement (a type of libel) requires demonstrating actual malice. Unlike in common parlance, actual malice doesn't mean ill will or intent to harm someone [1]. It means that the defendant made a false statement of fact despite knowing that the statement or false or despite having significant doubts about the truth of the statement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

hn_acker 2y ago

>> As far as I know, Media Matters never represented that n% of major advertisers' ads were shown next to racist content, just that some ads were, and that seems undisputed. > I had understood it like this as well. Musk alleges that they got the example through contrived means and that they did it purely to hurt X financially. I'm not sure about the other claims that X/Twitter alleges, but (in the US) succeeding on the claim of business disparagement (a type of libel) requires demonstrating actual malice. Unlike in common parlance, actual malice doesn't mean ill will or intent to harm someone [1]. It means that the defendant made a false statement of fact despite knowing that the statement or false or despite having significant doubts about the truth of the statement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice