In October of 2017, a court threw out one of these lawsuits filed by Resolute Forest Products (RFP), which was represented by Kasowitz partner Michael Bowe. But that didn't stop RFP from almost immediately refiling an amended lawsuit.
And now, the court has mostly dumped that new case, dismissing all of the RICO claims and most of the defamation claims.
15 months later.
Isn't the point of anti-SLAPP laws specifically to get baseless suits like this thrown out quickly so that the beleaguered defendant doesn't have to rack up months and years of legal fees?
Don't get me wrong, it's good that this is getting thrown out, but it still kind of feels like the system failed them.
Over the past few days, a social media shit-storm formed over footage of Catholic private school students in MAGA hats apparently engaging in some bigoted behavior while attending an anti-abortion march at the nation's capital. As more footage of the incident was released, the formerly crystal clear narrative of bigoted, privileged white dudes antagonizing a Native American demonstrator became a bit more muddied.
Support for the House Theory continues to mount.
On the TV show House, you'd see the same thing happen every time:
A patient comes in.
The usual suspects always claim it's gotta be lupus.
Google News is obviously profitable for Google, since they have a duty to investors not to be a charity or waste money. If it were n't profitable for them, even indirectly, it would not exist.
Actually, they specifically disavowed that idea in their IPO prospectus, stating that providing societally valuable services was a higher priority to them as a company than Wall Street's standard profit-chasing.
We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains.
Yes, that happened in one specific case. And it was terrible and should not have happened, and the oil companies responsible needs to be sued into nonexistence and have execs thrown in jail for it. But it's nowhere near normal and common, the way things were back in the days of "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." A whole freaking lot has changed in the last few centuries!
Well... clothing brand Asos apparently launched a clothing line called "Collusion" around the same time as Giuliani's original tweet
Do you ever read one of these articles, and you see something halfway down that's not really the main point of the article, but is tangentially related, and you just have to ask yourself "why would they even do that?!?"
Re: Re: Re: Google would rather lose-lose if not TOTAL control.
Good point. Googlebot is well-known to respect the robots.txt protocol; anyone who actually doesn't want the traffic is 100% free to tell Google to leave them alone and they will comply.
Because they don't want Google to stop. They want Google to keep sending them valuable traffic and pay them for it, which, as I pointed out above, is utterly insane.
No, actually they didn't. There was an article (that I think was on Techdirt, even) demonstrating that this claim can't possibly be true, as demonstrated by the cryptographic signatures on the emails.
Re: Re: Oh, more anti-Russia propaganda like "Integrity Ini
mind control
OK, last time I heard anyone use that term seriously, it was an old girlfriend in the early stages of a mental breakdown that culminated in full-on schizophrenia, complete with hearing voices. So seeing it here worries me. Please get help.
So... she's creating an organization that looks a lot like Wikileaks used to look like, back before all the crazy.
As they say, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Any word on how she intends to avoid ending up repeating Wikileaks's slide and looking like they do today? Or is it just "yeah, we're totally not gonna do that, trust us"?
Exactly. There's an important distinction to draw between legal *liability* (the ability to be punished when something wrong happens) and legal *obligation* (the requirement to comply with the law.) This article, and the court case that prompted it, is a very unfortunate blurring of that distinction.
OK, so someone else who was not me said something that may have been interpreted that way if you look at it sideways and squint. Why reply to me about that, though?
Re: Google would rather lose-lose if not TOTAL control.
News sites make Google's product for it, and are asking only some TINY actual return for it.
Google's product is Google News. (Among other products. But this is the one currently under discussion.) News sites make Google's content for it, and what they're getting is the massive actual return of Google driving traffic to their sites, which they are then able to monetize.
Google will not pay even a pittance, as its prior deliberate harm to Spain shows.
That's not what it shows at all. What it shows is that without the traffic which Google sends to their sites, harm does indeed come to them. Which proves that the traffic itself is valuable, so why should Google be paying them for it?
If anything, the news sites should be grateful that Google is not charging them for the valuable traffic they deliver. If we were setting up a system in which you turned over valuable gold jewelry to me, which would make more sense? Me paying you for the jewelry, or me demanding that you also pay me money in addition to giving me the jewelry?
Obviously the latter scenario would be totally insane. So how can any sane person support the principle behind Article 11?
On the post: Lawyer Steps Up To File Doomed Lawsuits On Behalf Of Catholic School Teens Called Racists On Social Media
Is there some legal nuance I'm missing here, or is that a really fancy way of saying "rape" without actually using the word?
On the post: Court Dismisses RICO SLAPP Suit Against Greenpeace By Logging Company
15 months later.
Isn't the point of anti-SLAPP laws specifically to get baseless suits like this thrown out quickly so that the beleaguered defendant doesn't have to rack up months and years of legal fees?
Don't get me wrong, it's good that this is getting thrown out, but it still kind of feels like the system failed them.
On the post: Lawyer Steps Up To File Doomed Lawsuits On Behalf Of Catholic School Teens Called Racists On Social Media
Support for the House Theory continues to mount.
On the TV show House, you'd see the same thing happen every time:
Racism in America is like lupus on House.
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, they specifically disavowed that idea in their IPO prospectus, stating that providing societally valuable services was a higher priority to them as a company than Wall Street's standard profit-chasing.
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re: Re:
On the post: Remember When Ajit Pai Said Killing Net Neutrality Would Boost Network Investment? About That...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that happened in one specific case. And it was terrible and should not have happened, and the oil companies responsible needs to be sued into nonexistence and have execs thrown in jail for it. But it's nowhere near normal and common, the way things were back in the days of "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." A whole freaking lot has changed in the last few centuries!
On the post: A Nesting Doll Of Stupidity: Rudy Giuliani's Twitter Typo Leads To Bogus Trademark Threat Letter
Do you ever read one of these articles, and you see something halfway down that's not really the main point of the article, but is tangentially related, and you just have to ask yourself "why would they even do that?!?"
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re: Re: Re: Google would rather lose-lose if not TOTAL control.
Good point. Googlebot is well-known to respect the robots.txt protocol; anyone who actually doesn't want the traffic is 100% free to tell Google to leave them alone and they will comply.
But that's not what they want.
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re: Re:
Because they don't want Google to stop. They want Google to keep sending them valuable traffic and pay them for it, which, as I pointed out above, is utterly insane.
On the post: Remember When Ajit Pai Said Killing Net Neutrality Would Boost Network Investment? About That...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
o_0
On the post: Emma Best's New Transparency Project Targets Russian Leaks She Says Wikileaks Refuses To Touch
Re: Re:
On the post: Emma Best's New Transparency Project Targets Russian Leaks She Says Wikileaks Refuses To Touch
Re: Re: Oh, more anti-Russia propaganda like "Integrity Ini
OK, last time I heard anyone use that term seriously, it was an old girlfriend in the early stages of a mental breakdown that culminated in full-on schizophrenia, complete with hearing voices. So seeing it here worries me. Please get help.
On the post: Emma Best's New Transparency Project Targets Russian Leaks She Says Wikileaks Refuses To Touch
Re: Oh, more anti-Russia propaganda like "Integrity Initiative".
Sidney Yendis, huh? Any relation to Stanley Yelnats, of Holes fame?
On the post: Emma Best's New Transparency Project Targets Russian Leaks She Says Wikileaks Refuses To Touch
As they say, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Any word on how she intends to avoid ending up repeating Wikileaks's slide and looking like they do today? Or is it just "yeah, we're totally not gonna do that, trust us"?
On the post: Daily Deal: Heimdal Thor Foresight Home PC Malware Protection
On the post: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Case That Threatened CDA 230
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Remember When Ajit Pai Said Killing Net Neutrality Would Boost Network Investment? About That...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re:
I see you've never been to England...
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re: Google would rather lose-lose if not TOTAL control.
Google's product is Google News. (Among other products. But this is the one currently under discussion.) News sites make Google's content for it, and what they're getting is the massive actual return of Google driving traffic to their sites, which they are then able to monetize.
That's not what it shows at all. What it shows is that without the traffic which Google sends to their sites, harm does indeed come to them. Which proves that the traffic itself is valuable, so why should Google be paying them for it?
If anything, the news sites should be grateful that Google is not charging them for the valuable traffic they deliver. If we were setting up a system in which you turned over valuable gold jewelry to me, which would make more sense? Me paying you for the jewelry, or me demanding that you also pay me money in addition to giving me the jewelry?
Obviously the latter scenario would be totally insane. So how can any sane person support the principle behind Article 11?
On the post: Remember When Ajit Pai Said Killing Net Neutrality Would Boost Network Investment? About That...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>