
Courtroom “Feud” Leaves Accurate Speech About Celebrities Unprotected - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/courtroom-feud-leaves-accurate-speech-about-celebrities-unprotected
======
marcoperaza
On the other end of things, I think the libel laws in the US are actually way
too weak. The impunity with which the news media tells outright lies that are
highly damaging to people's reputation is alarming and dangerous to public
discourse.

CNN and many other outlets had headlines and articles saying that James Damore
claimed that "women are biologically unfit for tech work". I can't imagine a
more malicious and intentional misrepresentation, rising to outright
fabrication, of what Mr. Damore wrote. Yet because Mr. Damore was a public
figure (at least with regards to what he wrote), he would find it near
impossible to succeed in suing the media corporations and others that smeared
him with vicious lies, even though those lies are a major part of how he
became a public figure in the first place.

As for the case the EFF is writing about, I wish they would have explained the
actual defamation and false light allegations. I suspect that with that
information, the EFF's argument wouldn't seem as obviously correct as they
portray it. Or perhaps not, but the glaring omission makes you wonder.

EDIT: I'd like to add that monetary damages isn't necessarily the most
important remedy for libel. If CNN had to have as their top story for a whole
day an apology to Mr. Damore and admission that they lied, I think that could
be an adequate remedy.

~~~
danso
Speaking generally — to not debate the specifics of the Damore case —what you
describe as “outright lies” could also be defended as being summarization or
interpretation, i.e. reading between the lines. Should Republicans be sued
because they claimed that Obama would support “death panels” and “death taxes”
even though he literally never said those literal phrases?

~~~
marcoperaza
"Death tax" is a colorful way to describe the estate tax, i.e. the tax levied
on your estate when you die. That's not a lie by any means.

I think your point is stronger for "death panels". But I don't think it's an
outright lie to say that a government panel making decisions as to whether a
particular medication is "comparatively effective" is making life and death
decisions for some patients. When the FDA doesn't let terminally ill patients
try a drug with a low chance of success, it is arguably acting as a death
panel. And don't forget that a public option was on the table for Obamacare
until final passage. The bill kept changing. A public insurer would definitely
have a a board determining which treatments would be covered or not, i.e. a
"death panel".

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203513204576047...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203513204576047742746513406)

~~~
vinhboy
> I don't think it's an outright lie

You're being kind of bias and mincing words in order to prove your point.

I read the google manifesto and I could easily summarize as what you said CNN
did (which I can't find btw).

I am not going to put it in quotes and say it came from the author's mouth,
because that would be an "outright lie", but I am allowed to come to my own
conclusions about things.

"death panels" is a better example of an "outright lie". Because no such thing
existed. No one wanted it. No one asked for it. It was created purely for
propaganda.

It's ridiculous to claim that medical advisory constitute a death panel.

------
jessaustin
TFA doesn't make it clear, but clicking through to the ruling it seems that
this is just on the preliminary anti-SLAPP motion. The trial judge still has a
chance to get it right. (IANAL)

