5 ms·

Seems like a Streisand effect case to me, but I'm not Maury Blackman so I can't say whether or not his arrest for domestic violence in Mission Bay in 2021 will

by ok_dad 2y ago

Seems like a Streisand effect case to me, but I'm not Maury Blackman so I can't say whether or not his arrest for domestic violence in Mission Bay in 2021 will be more well-known now that he's bullying and suing a reporter about it and trying to make it disappear. I can't believe that he might be successful, too, the USA is at some sort of crossroads where if we're not careful the most important freedoms that we have, those we can use to fight un-democratic trash, will vanish.

shadowgovt 2y ago
Definitely, but in this case, it may be a Streisand Effect with a $25 million payout attached. it is unclear to me whether US law and precedent has the idea of "half-truths" being defamatory. In this case, I'd imagine that would apply if it can be applied; the plaintiff was technically arrested, but legally the arrest itself was expunged. So telling people he was arrested is a truth that definitely isn't telling the whole truth.
- wbl 2y ago
  The US has truth has absolute bar to defamation. He really did get arrested the police report says what it was reported to have in it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - fortran77 2y ago
    A judge had said that it's as if the arrest had not occurred and ordered the record sealed. Without reporting the whole story, they're certainly not telling the "truth."
- buyucu 2y ago
  I doubt the journalist actually has 25 million to pay, even if the CEO wins the lawsuit.
darth_avocado 2y ago
Streisand effect is for when someone is trying to intentionally hide something from the public eye. Here the case is already in the public eye and they are suing for damages. It seems less about hiding it anymore and more about seeking damages for what’s already been shared in the public.
duxup 2y ago
>Seems like a Streisand effect case to me He already lost his job, news is out there, so at some point I wonder if the effect doesn't matter anymore. I gotta think it doesn't really matter if more distant randos (you, me) know.
- abrookewood 2y ago
  Hmmm ... at some point, maybe one of those random people are in a position to hire him and now they know.
  - duxup 2y ago
    Good chance if it is for an executive job they do a quick googling anyway.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
      Some of these background check companies (probably run by people with HN accounts) do protcoscope-level checks. They find social media posts, videos, photos, discussion comments, etc. With deepfakes, this is gonna get much worse. Just today, I was checking on a signup request for our app, and came across a video of the person that I think was a hit piece; maybe a deepfake. I still approved them, but the posting was clearly designed to cause them harm. I have no idea whether or not it did.
      - duxup 2y ago
        > I was checking on a signup request for our app, and came across a video of the person You're checking on everyone who signs up for an app?
        ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
        To an extent. Most times, it isn’t necessary to look them up. In this case, the person used a full email box, and I wanted to see if I could get them word about it. Our app is about helping folks, suffering challenges. If they are legit, then we could probably be a big help. We Serve a small, specific demographic, and privacy is pretty important. I’d much rather not do that kind of thing. I just want to avoid admitting obvious bad actors. We get a lot of scammers that try to sign up. We have probably let in a ringer or two, but they won’t find the app especially fruitful. It’s pretty locked-down. Facebook would be a much better hunting ground. Also, said demographic is exactly the type that might get hit pieces posted, so it is actually an argument in favor of them being the “real deal.”
jjeaff 2y ago
In this case, the effect would not be to merely bring the arrest to light. Anyone who comes across the arrest now, is likely to come across the whole story, which is that it has been expunged and he was not guilty.
- ok_dad 2y ago
  The whole story is also what the report says, which was that his partner was bloodied and cut and only recanted her story after he was being arrested, which is common in domestic abuse cases. His arrest was sealed after the charges were dropped, but he wasn't found "not guilty" or "guilty" in this case. Also, the "effect" could be to ruin an independent reporter, not just hide or explain the arrest.
  - user3939382 2y ago
    I see, so the justice system we’ve all agreed as a society to defer to, including the detectives that worked this case, don’t have the right answer but Internet Guy with 0 first hand knowledge does.
    - ok_dad 2y ago
      What kind of a comment or question is that? Do you have a point? I'm arguing this dude shouldn't be suing a reporter for reporting facts, you are willfully ignoring the fact that wealthy CEO-types often use money and high-powered lawyers to hide their misdeeds, who knows if this was the case here, and I am not saying it was, but how is this defamation? The guy was arrested for domestic violence, the statement by the officer states the woman was injured, what am I doing wrong here by repeating these same facts I just read in an article? Your comment is useless as-is, it's just appeal to authority.
      - user3939382 2y ago
        I thought my point was obvious — you’re declaring someone guilty of a crime when you have no knowledge of the case or more generally have no idea what you’re talking about.

by ok_dad 2y ago

shadowgovt 2y ago

Definitely, but in this case, it may be a Streisand Effect with a $25 million payout attached. it is unclear to me whether US law and precedent has the idea of "half-truths" being defamatory. In this case, I'd imagine that would apply if it can be applied; the plaintiff was technically arrested, but legally the arrest itself was expunged. So telling people he was arrested is a truth that definitely isn't telling the whole truth.

wbl 2y ago
The US has truth has absolute bar to defamation. He really did get arrested the police report says what it was reported to have in it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- fortran77 2y ago
  A judge had said that it's as if the arrest had not occurred and ordered the record sealed. Without reporting the whole story, they're certainly not telling the "truth."
buyucu 2y ago
I doubt the journalist actually has 25 million to pay, even if the CEO wins the lawsuit.

darth_avocado 2y ago

Streisand effect is for when someone is trying to intentionally hide something from the public eye. Here the case is already in the public eye and they are suing for damages. It seems less about hiding it anymore and more about seeking damages for what’s already been shared in the public.

duxup 2y ago

>Seems like a Streisand effect case to me He already lost his job, news is out there, so at some point I wonder if the effect doesn't matter anymore. I gotta think it doesn't really matter if more distant randos (you, me) know.

abrookewood 2y ago
Hmmm ... at some point, maybe one of those random people are in a position to hire him and now they know.
- duxup 2y ago
  Good chance if it is for an executive job they do a quick googling anyway.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    Some of these background check companies (probably run by people with HN accounts) do protcoscope-level checks. They find social media posts, videos, photos, discussion comments, etc. With deepfakes, this is gonna get much worse. Just today, I was checking on a signup request for our app, and came across a video of the person that I think was a hit piece; maybe a deepfake. I still approved them, but the posting was clearly designed to cause them harm. I have no idea whether or not it did.
    - duxup 2y ago
      > I was checking on a signup request for our app, and came across a video of the person You're checking on everyone who signs up for an app?
      - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
        To an extent. Most times, it isn’t necessary to look them up. In this case, the person used a full email box, and I wanted to see if I could get them word about it. Our app is about helping folks, suffering challenges. If they are legit, then we could probably be a big help. We Serve a small, specific demographic, and privacy is pretty important. I’d much rather not do that kind of thing. I just want to avoid admitting obvious bad actors. We get a lot of scammers that try to sign up. We have probably let in a ringer or two, but they won’t find the app especially fruitful. It’s pretty locked-down. Facebook would be a much better hunting ground. Also, said demographic is exactly the type that might get hit pieces posted, so it is actually an argument in favor of them being the “real deal.”

jjeaff 2y ago

In this case, the effect would not be to merely bring the arrest to light. Anyone who comes across the arrest now, is likely to come across the whole story, which is that it has been expunged and he was not guilty.

ok_dad 2y ago
The whole story is also what the report says, which was that his partner was bloodied and cut and only recanted her story after he was being arrested, which is common in domestic abuse cases. His arrest was sealed after the charges were dropped, but he wasn't found "not guilty" or "guilty" in this case. Also, the "effect" could be to ruin an independent reporter, not just hide or explain the arrest.
- user3939382 2y ago
  I see, so the justice system we’ve all agreed as a society to defer to, including the detectives that worked this case, don’t have the right answer but Internet Guy with 0 first hand knowledge does.
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    What kind of a comment or question is that? Do you have a point? I'm arguing this dude shouldn't be suing a reporter for reporting facts, you are willfully ignoring the fact that wealthy CEO-types often use money and high-powered lawyers to hide their misdeeds, who knows if this was the case here, and I am not saying it was, but how is this defamation? The guy was arrested for domestic violence, the statement by the officer states the woman was injured, what am I doing wrong here by repeating these same facts I just read in an article? Your comment is useless as-is, it's just appeal to authority.
    - user3939382 2y ago
      I thought my point was obvious — you’re declaring someone guilty of a crime when you have no knowledge of the case or more generally have no idea what you’re talking about.