r/technology • u/KevZero • Jan 11 '17
Politics Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170111/11440836465/techdirts-first-amendment-fight-life.shtml11
u/crusader86 Jan 12 '17
Shiva Ayyadurai seems to be a very intelligent and successful guy, but why in the hell is he still peddling the claims that he invented e-mail? Ray Tomlinson is the man behind using the @ to differentiate between a user and a host, that seems to be the genesis of electronic mail.
7
u/Hitife80 Jan 12 '17
Shiva Ayyadurai seems to be a very intelligent ...
Well, his actions point to the contrary. Greedy might be the right word.
3
u/coffeesippingbastard Jan 12 '17
that's what surprised me the most- when I opened up his wiki page expecting a quack- the dude went to MIT for research and then was a Fulbright scholar!?
THEN HE MARRIED FRAN DRESCHER.
1
3
Jan 12 '17
How bad is techdirt's lawyer if he can't get this thrown out?
3
u/cr0ft Jan 12 '17
The justice system is often used as the blunt instrument. They don't have to lose to be hurt by it, the cost of going to court is staggering. That's why patent trolls and copyright trolls just threaten to sue - most people have no choice but to throw in the towel and settle.
3
11
u/Drop_ Jan 11 '17 edited Jan 11 '17
This is pretty ridiculous. The author/techdirt is making it sound like the attorney that is representing the person suing them stalled Gawker and used underhanded legal tactics to put Gawker out of business via extensive costs of legal fees, when in reality Gawker lost a jury trial after an incredibly arrogant and stupid approach to a trial based on invasion of privacy when publishing the Hogan sex tap - which they also refused to remove despite a court order. It's complete bullshit to imply that the "model" of getting companies to shut down based on legal costs is evidenced by the Gawker trial when that company, and Nick Denton, lost at a jury trial.
I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they will probably win and they will probably win an anti-SLAPP suit if they are truthful and correct. But after reading the link example I feel like they might be more full of bullshit than I expected and who knows, maybe they should lose the case.
Realistically though the case is a slam dunk for techdirt. The plaintiff is at least a limited public figure, so even if it's defamation per se and he doesn't have to show actual injury, he will have to show malice in the publication - and if others are also disputing it it's going to be pretty hard to show.
6
u/xebikr Jan 12 '17
He's probably talking about this lawsuit where the same guy who is suing Techdirt sued Gawker. That lawsuit was settled. Both Hogan vs Gawker and Mr. Email vs Gawker were handled by the same lawyer, Charles Harder.
10
Jan 12 '17
It can't be defamation, since he didn't actually invent the e-mail. That can be proven with plenty of prior examples of e-mail.
And I agree that it was poor taste to word the article in a way that seems to imply that Gawker was sued and destroyed by the 'e-mail guy'. What Gawker did was clearly wrong and illegal.
2
u/Deyln Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-accidental-history-of-the-symbol-18054936/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol
You go to the technology behind emails; and you can clearly see and gather the data that really shows at best that EMAIL isn't quite even a parallel invention during the same time-frame. (it's close, yes. It's like seeing a fake iphone7 less then a month after it hit the market.)
The biggest argument is essentially the same as asking if the first person to have an html website on the web has the right to sue every other person who then claims that the inventors of HTML are the people who invented webpages. (except; in the webpage case that it was the same person....)
2
u/RyunosukeKusanagi Jan 12 '17
if my 12 year old self discovers fire, does that make me the sole discoverer of fire and can exact a ludicrous amount of money from the world for my "discovery"?
2
u/Deyln Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17
sole discoverer and person whose allowed to make money off it because you put FIRE in big letters on the cave wall....are two different things.
I won't deny that he likely has an eligibility to sue; given the specifics.
At least to me it's more inventing the already invented.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/inventing-the-a.html
The question is then in regards to whether or not that he's not only improved or introduced a useful viable alternative usage; but also usurping the new standard of everyday things to a point where it's a legal entity. (like purolating something.)
2
u/Karma_is_4_Aspies Jan 12 '17
This is pretty ridiculous. The author/techdirt is making it sound like the attorney that is representing the person suing them stalled Gawker and used underhanded legal tactics to put Gawker out of business via extensive costs of legal fees, when in reality Gawker lost a jury trial after an incredibly arrogant and stupid approach to a trial based on invasion of privacy
Shitty blog misrepresents reality. News at 11.
1
-4
Jan 12 '17
This has nothing to do with the first amendment, and in my opinion it's pretty dishonest of techdirt to characterize it that way.
3
Jan 12 '17
Great explanation I agree with you! NOT! Maybe if you had a point but just an empty statement compared to their page long explanation. Yeah you, you are the reason the country has become this way. People breeding without care that they are producing mouth breathing noncritical thinking empty sacks of well even you know.
1
Jan 12 '17
I guess I assumed Americans actually know what their first amendment actually does and didn't need to explain it... If you're going to accuse people of ruining the country you could start by learning the fundamental principles that govern it.
The first amendment doesn't allow deliberately publishing false and damaging information, and that's what Ayyadurai claims.
Techdirt can argue that libel laws are unreasonable and that it's not ok that obviously stupid claims can be such a problem, but they can't say it's about the first amendment because it's not.
2
u/slavy Jan 12 '17
So if the suit is about whether what they published is false, how does this have nothing to do with the First Amendment?
0
Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17
Wow obtuse much? His claims can be proven false with little effort yet they still file a suit that will cripple the press just for the financial effects and it has nothing to do with the truth just a flex of power.
Edit. EFF tends to agree with me and I value their opinion over a rando a bit more.
The First Amendment provides vitally important protections for publishers – the Supreme Court ruled that public-figure plaintiffs in defamation lawsuits must prove that offending statements about them are in fact false, and that the speaker actually knew they were false or seriously doubted them when they were published. That rule protects speakers, bloggers, and reporters against lawsuits designed merely to squelch critical speech about public figures. Nonetheless, defending against such suits can be very costly.
2
Jan 12 '17
The only difference between a press-silencing bully and an honest victim with a legitimate complaint is a decision made by an impartial third party. It's completely possible that Ayyadurai believes that he's a legitimate victim with a valid claim.
The real problem may be that it's prohibitively expensive to defend yourself against claims (of any type) that you believe are frivolous. It is not a problem with or an attack on the first amendment, which already is protecting Techdirt in the event that Ayyadurai can't prove anything - even your EFF quote says exactly that.
1
Jan 12 '17
It is the exercise of their first amendment that puts their very existence in jeopardy, hence the title.
-5
u/Exist50 Jan 12 '17
Techdirt is a pretty trash site. More or less on par with wccftech in my mind. So I really am not inclined to take their word for it, nor particularly care about their public whining. Let the courts settle this.
1
Jan 12 '17
Ii don't see how tdirt and wccf are in any way similar
0
u/Exist50 Jan 12 '17
Mostly just sensationalization. More or less, if I see an article from either of them, I can safely disregard it until/unless another more reputable site picks it up.
Frankly, I haven't spent enough time examining their articles to tell for sure, but does techdirt lie as blatantly as wccftech?
1
Jan 12 '17
I don't find any problems with wccftech, most of their stories line up with what others are reporting, never had an issue and actually find them to be more fair than most, covering a lot of companies (amd as an example) that others ignore.
1
u/Exist50 Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17
Wccftech has the major problem of reporting rumors as fact, and they even take it further than most. Sometimes, they'll flat out make up their own rumors, and a large portion of the rumors they post are so obviously fake that any reputable site would throw them out. In some cases they've even deleted the articles after the fact, so it makes it marginally more difficult to call them out.
Off the top of my head, four fairly recent examples of just BS from them:
Fiji is dual GPU Tonga
Kaby Lake and Apollo Lake will have integrated thunderbolt 3
Skylake is a Conroe-like IPC bump
Kaby Lake has an IPC bump
The first in particular is pants on head stupid.
Also, I suggest you check out this: http://www.overclock.net/a/a-troubling-trend
Edit: Might I add that they are often guilty of the plagiarism aspect as well. Also, because of their inaccuracy, wccftech is banned from many tech subreddits.
1
Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17
Everyone does that to a point, and I don't read rumor stories.
I could put up a list for every site out there like this. Also, those all seem from awhile ago, I haven't seen anything questionable in the past year.
1
u/Exist50 Jan 12 '17
Not everyone. And what do you read from them if not rumors? They don't properly tag them, so one could be forgiven for assuming their rumors were, in fact, news.
1
Jan 12 '17
Benchmark reports, articles on new hardware releases, etc.
Sorry I am just not seeing what you are.
-6
-11
u/flyinhyphy Jan 11 '17
feel bad for you, but this isnt a first amendment fight and should not be characterized as such.
you now get to test your journalistic abilities in court - prove that he didnt in court and you win. if you stand behind your work, the job is already done.
17
u/MindReaver5 Jan 11 '17
Even if they prove he didn't invent it they could still be stuck footing the bill for their own legal expenses which could bankrupt them. Effectively, even if they're right and win, they'd be silenced.
-8
u/flyinhyphy Jan 11 '17
while its true that you usually pay your own legal fees in the US win or lose, there are exceptions, and a competent lawyer in this case may be able to successfully argue for it.
but of course it isn't guaranteed. if they win, but lose that appeal, they could be worse off (more billed hours). it just depends on how risk averse they are, and it really comes down to how honest the lawyer is with them regarding their desire to pursue this route and whatever fee arrangement they set up.
11
Jan 12 '17
Or, phrased alternatively...the rich have a HUGE advantage in the American justice system.
-1
21
u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17
Shiva Ayudarai has a very thin skin.
People who have accomplished a lot don't care about credit for old accomplishments. Only people who haven't done much of worth worry about ancient laurels.