Hacker News Reader

Comment by dfee | Hacker News Reader

Tellingly, your comment offers no value judgement on the contents of the suit.

This case is worth watching, IMO, as it’s 1) a judgement on whether there was journalistic malpractice (is the suit valid?) and 2) an investigation into the finance trail of these sorts of campaigns (whether good or bad).

Perhaps there’s a chilling effect on other journalists, but I don’t think so. If X is wrong, it’d be too easy to drain them of cash.

View on HN

It's bad enough when rich people use the legal system to try and silence criticism.

It's far worse when they appear to be coordinating with the government to quash journalism.

"journalism"

The government isn't in the business of deciding what is or isn't good "journalism". That's kind of the point.

Also, if it were so far from the truth, maybe those companies wouldn't have pulled their ads. They probably verified it themselves.

> The government isn't in the business of deciding what is or isn't good "journalism".

Need to let the facts come out in court under oath for better insight into which is the victim and which is the oppressor.

The line between government, party, and activist seems to have blurred in the last couple of decades.

Perhaps you are right, but the same charge could be leveled against Media Matters if one is being intellectually honest.

Media Matters isn't the attorney general of one of the United States. It's a private organization.

Then it matters even more, because it shouldn't be that they can effectively ban anyone they dislike. So let them feel the lone stars strike. YEEEHAAW!

Who did MM ban and from where?

As a figure of speech, they lashed out, to rob someones clout, no doubt. Because of other opinion, can't accept loss of their dominion.

That aside, making anything Soros-funded cry out is a matter of honour, and giving me a hard boner o|o

Thermonukular, in fäqqt.

So no one was effectively banned from anything by MM. Got it.

They tried to, by limiting outreach, which they felt they had lost, via the same channel. Channel gave the bird. They feel stirred. There is a feedback loop in action. Which stirs up even more shady things to emerge. Which is satisfying, because once emerged, for all to be seen, there is no denying, that one side is unclean.

I am sorry but that reply is incomprehensible.

I think he said all he needed to with "Soros" and "unclean".

Kind of proves the point about Elon enabling these people.

Would you mind to define 'these'?

In case not, I think by these people you accuse them of putting them all into one basket, because of heritage, ethnicity, race, whatnot. Which isn't the case, IMO. What shouldn't be the case either, is that some people/entities which have an intersecting set with some group should be sacroscant because of said intersection. That doesn't work for me.

Edit: In this context, I think what's happening now, is that someone who is percieved as impertinent arriviste by certain established elements, gives a shit about that sacrosanctness. Which enrages them. Which is good. Because they deserve to whiplashed hard. Like their whiny groupies.

Btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_LIKxqSB2I

Aaand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3sKIV6KugA

(giggle)

Are you aware that there is no such thing as “journalistic malpractice”? And that any attempt to create such a thing to strip first amendment rights and allow retaliation by the government is a doomsday scenario for free press?

Gawker would disagree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker

A civil suit bankrolled by a vindictive Peter Thiel does not establish a doctrine of “journalistic malpractice”

The lawsuit funded by Peter Thiel with the intention of bankrupting Gawker? That case was about invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and Gawker settled. The case said nothing about a supposed "journalistic malpractice"

Hey you should read that link you posted!

There's no merit to the suit. MediaMatters reporting was accurate. The claim that "it was accurate, but lacked context", would open a flood gate of anti-journalistic suits.

They've filed it in the "conservative cases do well here!" fifth circuit, but it's hard to see how this passes any defamation test.

> They've filed it in the "conservative cases do well here!" fifth circuit

Inaccurate, and lacked context.

Texas is in the Fifth Circuit. There's literally nowhere else they could file a suit.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/styles/lead/pub...

And nothing's been filed yet.

Why is there literally nowhere else to file a suit?

It occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted GGP's post, but if he's talking about the Texas Attorney General bringing some kind of claim on behalf of Texas, filing suit outside of Texas would be improper venue.

(If talking about the X lawsuit, which I didn't even realize existed until just now, that's a tangential matter to the OP.)

People seem to be kind of talking about both on the same thread. Seems kind of bad that government officials are cooperating so closely with a private business to take on the "enemies" of said business that people are conflating the two.

X Corp is domiciled in Nevada, not Texas, it seems like:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/twitter-nevada-musk-x-super...

There's no reason to file it in Texas except to get it in the 5th circuit:

> A Nevada corporation, whose HQ is in California, sues a DC entity and Maryland resident in … Texas.

> This is like a 1L law school nightmare hypo. https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1726771833360339291?s...

This thread is about the actions of the Texas Attorney General.

Perhaps there is no merit. And, if the trial is unfair, I’m sure it will move to a higher level on appeal.

I think this is a good exercise of the judicial branches of our state and federal government. We the people win in the end.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com