just a minor clarification. the court did not order the article to he taken down. the court just said that the article constitutes defamation.
it was Reuter’s decision to therefore take down the article. in OP’s first link, there’s info of other media houses that have also pulled such stories.
blame the scummy lawyers protecting the scumbag and his predatory behaviour.
Vash63@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What’s the difference between the court saying it’s defamation, and thus illegal to publish and worthy of awarding damages, and ordering it taken down? Seems like splitting hairs.
ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Reuters had a choice to reword the article (like some other media houses in OP’s link have done) or retract the article. they have chosen to do the latter.
the core difference is that choice. had the court deemed that the article should have been taken down, Reuters wouldn’t have even had that choice.
getting mad at the court in this case is akin to getting mad at the car that a drunk driver drove into a house. blame the leeching lawyers here.
blusterydayve26@midwest.social 10 months ago
I think people mad at Reuters don’t realize that they’re intentionally invoking the Streisand Effect in this case. Otherwise I wouldn’t have heard anything about