- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Can NY Post Sue the Big Media who Censored Them?
Posted on 3/19/22 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 3/19/22 at 1:03 pm
Damages would be that these big tech companies used their 'fact checkers' to determine it was fake news, which is a direct attack on the credibility of the newspaper, damaging their reputation on a global scale. Now that is was all true, the Post should be able to calculate damages based on how many click$ they normally would have received for the story if they hadn't been unfairly blocked, for actual damages, then tack on punitive damages.
This post was edited on 3/19/22 at 1:25 pm
8
Posted on 3/19/22 at 1:13 pm to deeprig9
Yes
Posted on 3/19/22 at 2:28 pm to deeprig9
Can they sue? Yes. Can they win? No.
Posted on 3/19/22 at 2:32 pm to unclejhim
quote:
Can they win? No.
Educate me.
Posted on 3/19/22 at 3:05 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Can they win? No.
Educate me.
For starters, it is incredibly difficult to win slander/defamation lawsuits
Posted on 3/19/22 at 3:22 pm to ksayetiger
quote:
Educate me.
quote:
For starters, it is incredibly difficult to win slander/defamation lawsuits
This.
Posted on 3/19/22 at 3:34 pm to ksayetiger
quote:
For starters, it is incredibly difficult to win slander/defamation lawsuits
This one seems pretty open and shut. The biggest hurdle is proving actual damages, this one should be pretty easy to calculate and argue.
Posted on 3/19/22 at 5:07 pm to deeprig9
I’d think tortious interference with business would probably be the way to go, but I’d love to hear from someone with a legal background. The post creates revenue based off of news articles that generates clicks and sells papers. Those numbers can then be used to set rates for ad buys which also generates revenue for the company. One could argue that big media interfered in the business operations of the NY Post by use of coordinated censorship of the story that resulted in loss of revenue and damage to their reputation.
Posted on 3/19/22 at 7:22 pm to unclejhim
quote:
For starters, it is incredibly difficult to win slander/defamation lawsuits
Sandmann didn’t seem to have a problem.
Posted on 3/19/22 at 9:43 pm to deeprig9
They should at least have to make a large measure of reconstructing the story for their audience.
Should have to put on at least 5 minutes every hour for the next 4 years all the lies they told and their rationale for the lies.
IF they actually depended on "confidential sources" then they should be required to name those sources, and then those sources should lose whatever official status they have and be open for major civil lawsuits for all who were harmed by their lies.
for starters
Should have to put on at least 5 minutes every hour for the next 4 years all the lies they told and their rationale for the lies.
IF they actually depended on "confidential sources" then they should be required to name those sources, and then those sources should lose whatever official status they have and be open for major civil lawsuits for all who were harmed by their lies.
for starters
Posted on 3/19/22 at 10:13 pm to deeprig9
Idk. Msm may just claim that the government itself said the laptop was fake, and the story was just Russian disinformation. They just repeated and analyzed what the government said.
Then if nyp sues certain people who worked in our government.. those people can probably claim that based on classified intel, they truly believed it was fake.
If nyp sues Twitter and Facebook, Twitter and Facebook would probably say they were just following the lead of our government, and they acted to prevent Russia from influencing the election.
With roundabout excuses, and deniability, MSM, government and social media will be able to skirt any lawsuit.
Then if nyp sues certain people who worked in our government.. those people can probably claim that based on classified intel, they truly believed it was fake.
If nyp sues Twitter and Facebook, Twitter and Facebook would probably say they were just following the lead of our government, and they acted to prevent Russia from influencing the election.
With roundabout excuses, and deniability, MSM, government and social media will be able to skirt any lawsuit.
This post was edited on 3/19/22 at 10:16 pm
Posted on 3/19/22 at 10:16 pm to SlickRickerz
quote:
Sandmann didn’t seem to have a problem.
Sandmann didn’t win any court cases. It was all settlements.
But his case was different. He was an underage private citizen.
It’s different when you are a public figure or big company.
Posted on 3/20/22 at 2:29 am to deeprig9
How did the other media censor them?
Posted on 3/20/22 at 8:28 am to deeprig9
No all around. A private entity cannot sue another private entity for censorship and I'm no sure that censorship is anywhere inside of the US Code.
What you have here is private publications making editorial decisions well within their purview. The Times et al were reporting as to the opinions of their sources that although today is seen as totally wrong, at the the time of initial reporting they thought correct and in their opinion responsible. The Times did not slander the Post. Facebook did not slander the Post as a company and neither did Twitter as a matter of law.
All the Times will say at best is that they were wrong and print a retraction and place it on p.9. Whether these entities were carrying water for the Democrats is irrelevant. Nothing they did comes close to meeting the thresholds for slander/libel. Sandmann was a different animal. They accussed an underage kid of doing something that he did not do and it was demonstrably untrue and tried to cause a private citizen serious if not irreparable harm.
What you have here is private publications making editorial decisions well within their purview. The Times et al were reporting as to the opinions of their sources that although today is seen as totally wrong, at the the time of initial reporting they thought correct and in their opinion responsible. The Times did not slander the Post. Facebook did not slander the Post as a company and neither did Twitter as a matter of law.
All the Times will say at best is that they were wrong and print a retraction and place it on p.9. Whether these entities were carrying water for the Democrats is irrelevant. Nothing they did comes close to meeting the thresholds for slander/libel. Sandmann was a different animal. They accussed an underage kid of doing something that he did not do and it was demonstrably untrue and tried to cause a private citizen serious if not irreparable harm.
Posted on 3/20/22 at 9:34 am to KiwiHead
quote:
What you have here is private publications making editorial decisions well within their purview.
Is twitter a publication?
Or public space?
Posted on 3/20/22 at 9:49 am to deeprig9
Anybody can sue.
Winning is the hard part.
Social Media Companies are statutorily immune from defamation suits. I’m not sure if the NY Post would qualify as a public or private figure with respect to legacy media like TV or newspapers. But either way, defamation claims are very difficult to win.
I’ve always thought that there is an action under restraint of trade (unfair trade practice) laws. These are also difficult to win, but it feels more applicable to private businesses silencing speech they don’t like. It restricts the marketplace of ideas. Which is a thing.
Again - difficult to win, but probably more applicable to the New York Post’s situation. Especially bc they were essentially censored by their competitors.
Winning is the hard part.
Social Media Companies are statutorily immune from defamation suits. I’m not sure if the NY Post would qualify as a public or private figure with respect to legacy media like TV or newspapers. But either way, defamation claims are very difficult to win.
I’ve always thought that there is an action under restraint of trade (unfair trade practice) laws. These are also difficult to win, but it feels more applicable to private businesses silencing speech they don’t like. It restricts the marketplace of ideas. Which is a thing.
Again - difficult to win, but probably more applicable to the New York Post’s situation. Especially bc they were essentially censored by their competitors.
This post was edited on 3/20/22 at 9:51 am
Posted on 3/20/22 at 9:58 am to Wednesday
quote:
Especially bc they were essentially censored by their competitors
Not to mention their ability to promote their brand/company was hindered via having their account locked on Twitter because they refused to delete the tweet breaking the story.
Posted on 3/20/22 at 10:05 am to deeprig9
And on the solo pursuit angle, the Post's Miranda Devine, had to fight an uphill battle personally,. Thank God that Hannity, Tucker, & Ingraham, gave her a platform against the propagandized headwind.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News