More liberal censorship

[rexlunae]

...as in, an attempt to censor a liberal media outlet.

Mother Jones posted this article (http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit), explaining a lawsuit that they were defending from a Romney mega-donor who didn't like how they described him.

Now, I know a lot of people here aren't going to be very sympathetic to MoJo on principle. But if we can set that aside for a moment, isn't it a little bit chilling that this was even attempted? It's pretty clear that short of real, clear defamation, the press has a right to print what they want. And it sounds like this was a pretty extensive effort to silence a media outlet that was just doing their job.

 

[Greg Jennings]

...as in, an attempt to censor a liberal media outlet.

Mother Jones posted this article (http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit), explaining a lawsuit that they were defending from a Romney mega-donor who didn't like how they described him.

Now, I know a lot of people here aren't going to be very sympathetic to MoJo on principle. But if we can set that aside for a moment, isn't it a little bit chilling that this was even attempted? It's pretty clear that short of real, clear defamation, the press has a right to print what they want. And it sounds like this was a pretty extensive effort to silence a media outlet that was just doing their job.

Well seeing as the courts did their job and no real harm was done, what's the big deal? People try to do this kind of thing all the time

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Not that I don't believe every word that the socialists at Mother Jones write, but..

VanderSloot said he's pleased that the judge found the reporting was biased. He has created a $1 million fund to defend conservatives against media outlets that he considers to be liberal.

"The judge felt that Mother Jones' actions were so atrocious, she wrote three full pages chastising and exposing Mother Jones' reporters, methodologies and biases," VanderSloot said.

He added that he expects the fund, named the Guardian of True Liberty, to quickly grow with donations from other colleagues also wanting to sue news organizations over unfair or false press coverage. However, VanderSloot said he does not expect the fund to be used against Idaho media, rather national news organizations like Mother Jones.

"It is an egregious wrong for anyone to take somebody's life and try to destroy their legacy by changing it up with falsehoods," VanderSloot said. "It will be a mission for me for the rest of my life to hold the press accountable. The press is so protected, as shown in this case."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...SUIT?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It appears that MJ has a history of libel and slander lawsuits.
http://communpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Mother_Jones

 

[rexlunae]

Well seeing as the courts did their job and no real harm was done, what's the big deal? People try to do this kind of thing all the time

It literally cost them millions of dollars to defend. That's a significant harm in a media industry that is always a bit threatened. A media company could literally be sued off the map if it can't pay to defend these suits, or perhaps worse, be forced to self-censor.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It literally cost them millions of dollars to defend. That's a significant harm in a media industry that is always a bit threatened. A media company could literally be sued off the map if it can pay to defend these suits, or perhaps worse, be forced to self-censor.

Ah I admit I did not realize that. It's unfortunate I suppose, but it happens both ways to each side of the political spectrum. As well as in the business world. An example would be large companies with so much money that they'll take anyone suing them to court for so long that it just costs too much money for anyone to keep up, an eventually the suit is always dropped. If I'm not mistaken Wal-Mart is known for this kind of action.

Basically I'm saying that this is just one of the warts of an overall good system that we have. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad

 

[rexlunae]

Not that I don't believe every word that the socialists at Mother Jones write, but..

VanderSloot said he's pleased that the judge found the reporting was biased. He has created a $1 million fund to defend conservatives against media outlets that he considers to be liberal.

"The judge felt that Mother Jones' actions were so atrocious, she wrote three full pages chastising and exposing Mother Jones' reporters, methodologies and biases," VanderSloot said.

He added that he expects the fund, named the Guardian of True Liberty, to quickly grow with donations from other colleagues also wanting to sue news organizations over unfair or false press coverage. However, VanderSloot said he does not expect the fund to be used against Idaho media, rather national news organizations like Mother Jones.

"It is an egregious wrong for anyone to take somebody's life and try to destroy their legacy by changing it up with falsehoods," VanderSloot said. "It will be a mission for me for the rest of my life to hold the press accountable. The press is so protected, as shown in this case."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...SUIT?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It appears that MJ has a history of libel and slander lawsuits.
http://communpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Mother_Jones

The judge's opinion under "Further Discussion" (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2451499/vanderslootdecision.pdf, page 51) isn't a matter of law. It's a matter of the judge's taste. It calls out the judge's perception of bias in MoJo's reporting, and while it's certainly fair to a point, it's also true that not one of the plaintiff's complaints stood up. In fact, the court found everything in dispute in the article to be either true or subjective. If MoJo's reporting is so egregious, you would think there would have been something that stuck. This was a summary judgement, so all of the facts in dispute were interpreted in the plaintiff's favor, and he still couldn't make anything stick.

And it wasn't "three full pages". It was about two pages, one full and two half-ish. But lets not quibble.

And I'm hoping we aren't so precious we don't think this kind of muckraking opposition research, biased as it may be, isn't done by everyone. Personally, I'm in favor of an adversarial, oppositional political media that is looking for the dirt. The only sense in which this is biased is when you look at a single source, which I virtually never do. As long as the parties hew closely to the truth rather than indulging imagination and falsehood, I think it produces better results.

 

[rexlunae]

Basically I'm saying that this is just one of the warts of an overall good system that we have. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad

I think the thing that really bothers me the most about it is the trend of political operatives trying to sue those who would cover their activities out of the public consciousness. A lot of those people have very deep pockets, and the work being done is, I think, very clearly in the public interest, as well as being critical to the political process. I really hope that MoJo is awarded costs, in order to push back on the use of baseless lawsuits in this way. A well-placed lawsuit could swing an election, and if it doesn't cost the plaintiff seriously (when it's this baseless), that's a problem.

 

[ok doser]

I think the thing that really bothers me the most about it is the trend of political operatives trying to sue ...

i have a solution


feed all the lawyers into woodchippers :thumb:

 

[Granite]

They really, really hated that 47% video getting leaked.

 

[bybee]

...as in, an attempt to censor a liberal media outlet.

Mother Jones posted this article (http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit), explaining a lawsuit that they were defending from a Romney mega-donor who didn't like how they described him.

Now, I know a lot of people here aren't going to be very sympathetic to MoJo on principle. But if we can set that aside for a moment, isn't it a little bit chilling that this was even attempted? It's pretty clear that short of real, clear defamation, the press has a right to print what they want. And it sounds like this was a pretty extensive effort to silence a media outlet that was just doing their job.

I suppose it is a bit of "Tit for Tat"?
This is a routine waste of time and money.
Frankly, Mother Jones is a nasty old bag
!

 

[Granite]

I suppose it is a bit of "Tit for Tat"?
This is a routine waste of time and money.
Frankly, Mother Jones is a nasty old bag
!

So if you think a publication deserves it, censorship's okay.

 

[bybee]

I think the thing that really bothers me the most about it is the trend of political operatives trying to sue those who would cover their activities out of the public consciousness. A lot of those people have very deep pockets, and the work being done is, I think, very clearly in the public interest, as well as being critical to the political process. I really hope that MoJo is awarded costs, in order to push back on the use of baseless lawsuits in this way. A well-placed lawsuit could swing an election, and if it doesn't cost the plaintiff seriously (when it's this baseless), that's a problem.

I agree with you in principle.

 

[PureX]

Money is power, and power enables abuse. We can't really change that, but we do need to be mindful of it, especially now that we have created this small group of super wealthy people and corporations that are using that great wealth to corrupt essential social institutions, like the media and the government.

When BP spends hundreds of millions of dollars on 'feel-good' TV ads, so that the TV news programmers will ignore their next big oil spill for fear of losing those huge ad dollars, and they DO ignore it, that's a serious problem. Just as their being able to file endless expensive law suits against media outlets that report on stories they didn't want reported on, and it WORKS, is a problem. And it's gotten way worse. Now this very wealthy elite OWNS a huge majority of the media outlets and through them they control the news all together. So that it's only the small, low budget, outsider news outlets that are free to report the real news about them. And those small outlets can't afford these ongoing harassment law suits. They can easily be shut down by them. And this is what's happening.

Because money is power, it's absolutely crucial that we don't allow vast sums of money to pile up in the hands of a few people who we did not elect and cannot expect to represent our interests and well being, because they will control our lives, and they will NOT do so based on our interests and well-being.

And this is exactly what's happening, now. And it's also why our culture, government, media, and economic systems are deteriorating from the corruption of the abuse of the power of money.

 

[Stripe]

:darwinsm:

Liberals censoring liberals is hilarious.