3 ms·

Reading through this, it seemed like a pretty clear-cut case where Bowne had done things right from start to finish. And then I got to this: "Apparently, commi

by akerl_ 12y ago

Reading through this, it seemed like a pretty clear-cut case where Bowne had done things right from start to finish. And then I got to this: "Apparently, committing libel is a common thing for them, and they are comfotable completely ignoring the protests of their victims." I understand that he's likely under tremendous stress as a result of the allegations that LSU has made, but I'm a bit concerned that in his expression of shock and outrage he has turned to making what appear to be potentially libelous statements of his own. I hope that his goal of having the accusations withdrawn is not hindered by this momentary slip into hyperbole.

atmosx 12y ago
Hm, not really. That's just you being pedantic. When you've been a victim of someone else's incompetence you assume that he is an incompetent because, the only reason you know of his existence is because of his incompetence. Given the fact that many of us believe that the two magazines do not really care about what happened, as much as they prefer getting clicks - a view which is supported by the course of action this story took - it's not a far-fetched claim at all. Especially for a man in his position. NOTE: They didn't took any action even when notified. The only way for them to remove the article would a letter from a lawyer (or at least that's what I'm getting).
- akerl_ 12y ago
  Neither his position nor his circumstances provide factual backing for the claim that "committing libel is a common thing for them" or that "they are comfotable completely ignoring the protests of their victims". Being a victim of their incompetence does not give him free license to imagine ways he things that they are incompetent and then express them as fact. They have not yet taken any action. It's just as likely that they haven't seen his tweet. They are certainly in the wrong here. But his jab at their moral standing weakens his position, and given the state of business <-> individual relations when it comes to disclosing security vulnerabilities, he wants his position to be as strong as possible in case they do turn out to be malicious and attempt to make the case that he violated their security.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    You have to consider the full sentence and the context. He has not said; "committing libel is a common thing for them" He has said; "My comments on the SC Magazine article were deleted. The "journalist" who invented the article has not altered it or contacted me in any way. The two CEOs have also remained silent. Apparently, committing libel is a common thing for them, and they are comfotable completely ignoring the protests of their victims." The word "Apparently" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It is essentially saying "In light of this stated behaviour, it would seem reasonable to assume that...". He is not making a statement of bald fact however, which is what you are presenting it as by removing the context. Amusingly, you are possibly being slightly libellous here by suggesting that he is.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    There is a good chance a judge would find that the reporters are guilty of libel. Then the professor would be in a pretty good position to defend libel counter-charges. I thought you'd get more meat from his reference to their crimes. Libel is civil.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > There is a good chance a judge would find that the reporters are guilty of libel. Then the professor would be in a pretty good position to defend libel counter-charges. That's true, but in many cases like this, on weighing the evidence and seeing evidence for mutual libels, the judge will throw out both actions. The professor should have consulted an attorney before calling people liars -- all the subjects need to do is show that they didn't publish statements that they knew were false (thus failing the definition of "lie"). Failing a reasonable test of due diligence may be deplorable, but it doesn't make one a liar. > I thought you'd get more meat from his reference to their crimes. Libel is civil. All true. One of the ironies of modern times is that a civil action can do more to undermine one's life than a criminal one, depending on the circumstances.

by akerl_ 12y ago

atmosx 12y ago

Hm, not really. That's just you being pedantic. When you've been a victim of someone else's incompetence you assume that he is an incompetent because, the only reason you know of his existence is because of his incompetence. Given the fact that many of us believe that the two magazines do not really care about what happened, as much as they prefer getting clicks - a view which is supported by the course of action this story took - it's not a far-fetched claim at all. Especially for a man in his position. NOTE: They didn't took any action even when notified. The only way for them to remove the article would a letter from a lawyer (or at least that's what I'm getting).

akerl_ 12y ago
Neither his position nor his circumstances provide factual backing for the claim that "committing libel is a common thing for them" or that "they are comfotable completely ignoring the protests of their victims". Being a victim of their incompetence does not give him free license to imagine ways he things that they are incompetent and then express them as fact. They have not yet taken any action. It's just as likely that they haven't seen his tweet. They are certainly in the wrong here. But his jab at their moral standing weakens his position, and given the state of business <-> individual relations when it comes to disclosing security vulnerabilities, he wants his position to be as strong as possible in case they do turn out to be malicious and attempt to make the case that he violated their security.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  You have to consider the full sentence and the context. He has not said; "committing libel is a common thing for them" He has said; "My comments on the SC Magazine article were deleted. The "journalist" who invented the article has not altered it or contacted me in any way. The two CEOs have also remained silent. Apparently, committing libel is a common thing for them, and they are comfotable completely ignoring the protests of their victims." The word "Apparently" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It is essentially saying "In light of this stated behaviour, it would seem reasonable to assume that...". He is not making a statement of bald fact however, which is what you are presenting it as by removing the context. Amusingly, you are possibly being slightly libellous here by suggesting that he is.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  There is a good chance a judge would find that the reporters are guilty of libel. Then the professor would be in a pretty good position to defend libel counter-charges. I thought you'd get more meat from his reference to their crimes. Libel is civil.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > There is a good chance a judge would find that the reporters are guilty of libel. Then the professor would be in a pretty good position to defend libel counter-charges. That's true, but in many cases like this, on weighing the evidence and seeing evidence for mutual libels, the judge will throw out both actions. The professor should have consulted an attorney before calling people liars -- all the subjects need to do is show that they didn't publish statements that they knew were false (thus failing the definition of "lie"). Failing a reasonable test of due diligence may be deplorable, but it doesn't make one a liar. > I thought you'd get more meat from his reference to their crimes. Libel is civil. All true. One of the ironies of modern times is that a civil action can do more to undermine one's life than a criminal one, depending on the circumstances.