Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 270 posts

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#251

Post by gamblor956 »

adolph wrote: post #249
gamblor956 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad example. All of the allegations in the Bloomberg article were true. Leif Olson actually did all of the things alleged, however the Bloomberg article missed that he supposedly did these things as satire...because Olson didn't actually bother to clarify that his posts were satirical until several days after they were made (and importantly, several days after the article itself was originally written). Both Olson an…

Oh hai Mayor B, You forgot the part where the reporter deliberately cut off the part of the post that referred to the comment as satire.

No, there was no part of the post starting that it was satire. That came in a follow-up post made several days later.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#252

Post by gamblor956 »

driverdan wrote: post #214
gamblor956 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Big China Chip Hack was never actually debunked. It was refuted , yes, but every company always does that, right up until they admit in a court settlement that the allegations were true all along. Despite the supposedly slanderous statements, none of the supposedly slandered companies has sued over the article, even though in several cases they suffered material impacts to their stock prices and financial results…

It doesn't need to be debunked. Bloomberg never produced any evidence. Until they produce an example board it's safe to assume the story is garbage.

Bloomberg did provide evidence. In the article. You supply refuse to accept it as evidence of their claims. They aren't obligated to provide more evidence, especially since their report has not been debunked in any way.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#253

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

comex wrote: post #236
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New York Times v. Sullivan was a defamation case. The 1st Amendment protects your right to show reckless disregard for truth or falsity, unless you're slandering someone.

Do you have a citation for your second sentence? NYT v. Sullivan was a defamation case, but my assumption is that the level of protection the First Amendment provides to any given act of speech isn't affected much by which law is trying to penalize that speech. I could easily be wrong; is there a case where the issue came up? (Also, Elon's tweet may count as commercial speech, which is less protected in general.)

I'm basing the second sentence in the narrowness of the exceptions to freedom of speech in the US.

If the government were to try to impose restrictions on "untrue" speech in areas outside defamation, particularly in politics, I would view that as a major assault on the 1st Amendment.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#254

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

axlee wrote: post #244
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that same logic, throwing someone in jail for insulting the President wouldn't be a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does indeed mean freedom from consequences for your speech - at least governmental consequences.

If your speech negatively impacts another citizen, and your speech turned out to be all lies, you are absolutely liable for the consequences of it. The "government" is simply here to handle the arbitration.

Only under very specific and difficult-to-prove circumstances. These exceptions to freedom of speech are very narrowly carved out, and for good reason. The broader the exception, the easier it is to instrumentalize for political repression - and there will be a huge desire to do so.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#255

Post by modo_mario »

gamblor956 wrote: post #252
driverdan wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to be debunked. Bloomberg never produced any evidence. Until they produce an example board it's safe to assume the story is garbage.

Bloomberg did provide evidence. In the article. You supply refuse to accept it as evidence of their claims. They aren't obligated to provide more evidence, especially since their report has not been debunked in any way.

And what evidence might that be?

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#256

Post by close04 »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #235
close04 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> push against the First Amendment This isn't a freedom of speech issue since obviously they were free to say whatever they wanted, lies and misinformation included. This doesn't imply freedom from consequences. Causing a company to lose 18% value because they couldn't be bothered to verify is negligence, incompetence, or malice (or a combination) not freedom of speech and it's only fair to receive a fine. Bloomberg…

By that same logic, throwing someone in jail for insulting the President wouldn't be a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does indeed mean freedom from consequences for your speech - at least governmental consequences.

So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech. How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? Or slander? Libel? Obscenity? Telling someone to kill themselves (spoiler alert: you may get convicted for involuntary manslaughter)? [0]

In this case the fine was not for the speech but for the market manipulation. Saying "oh we were the victims of a hoax and just believed what a random site said" is not a defense. Case law obviously has plenty of precedent for consequences of free speech.

Yes the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech and this is where all the confusion starts. Everybody has their own definition of freedom of speech. Most are wrong or uninformed [1]. Given that even the Supreme Court has varying opinions on this from time to time just says it's not an easy topic. No, you don't have a blank cheque for saying anything you want without consequences. Speech is still very much regulated, written press and broadcasting are regulated (differently), etc. You have laws that criminalize slander, market manipulation, etc.

Your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#257

Post by [deleted] »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #254
axlee wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your speech negatively impacts another citizen, and your speech turned out to be all lies, you are absolutely liable for the consequences of it. The "government" is simply here to handle the arbitration.

Only under very specific and difficult-to-prove circumstances. These exceptions to freedom of speech are very narrowly carved out, and for good reason. The broader the exception, the easier it is to instrumentalize for political repression - and there will be a huge desire to do so.

[deleted]

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#258

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

close04 wrote: post #256
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that same logic, throwing someone in jail for insulting the President wouldn't be a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does indeed mean freedom from consequences for your speech - at least governmental consequences.

So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech. How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? Or slander? Libel? Obscenity? Telling someone to kill themselves (spoiler alert: you may get convicted for involuntary manslaughter)? [0] In this case the fine was not for the speech but for the market manipulation. Saying "oh we were the victims of a hoax and just believed what a…

> So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech. [...] Or slander? Libel?

As I said, the exceptions to freedom of speech are extremely narrowly carved out. What you're discussing is incitement to violence. There is a very high bar to prove incitement, libel or slander. It's almost impossible to libel a public figure, for example. Almost anything you could say about a politician is considered protected political speech.

> How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? [...] Obscenity?

These are restrictions that apply in very specific circumstances (e.g., representatives of public companies, television/radio hosts on certain regulated spectrum).

> Speech is still very much regulated

In extremely narrowly defined circumstances, which usually have a very high bar of proof. The general trend that I have observed since Trump's election, which I find very worrying, is for many American liberals to begin calling for greater regulation of speech. The 1st Amendment is incredibly expansive, which is one of the most appealing aspects of the American Constitution, in my opinion. In other countries (e.g., the UK and Germany), it is much easier for the government to regulate speech, which I don't think is healthy for democracy. It is easily for those in power to abuse such restrictions on speech.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#259

Post by close04 »

comex wrote: post #221
close04 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> push against the First Amendment This isn't a freedom of speech issue since obviously they were free to say whatever they wanted, lies and misinformation included. This doesn't imply freedom from consequences. Causing a company to lose 18% value because they couldn't be bothered to verify is negligence, incompetence, or malice (or a combination) not freedom of speech and it's only fair to receive a fine. Bloomberg…

It is a freedom of speech issue, at least from a US perspective. Whether newspapers can be held liable for inadvertently publishing false information was the exact issue at hand in New York Times v. Sullivan, a case which is one of the foundations of modern First Amendment jurisprudence. It held that, in almost all circumstances, they cannot.

I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning. Inadvertent implies no intention, accidental. Bloomberg did zero due diligence with regard to this information, no attempt to validate it or the source was done before publishing. This resulted in market manipulation and that is punishable by law.

Newspapers could always publish anything by just saying "I found it on the internet". Which is obviously not the case. The free speech and free press clauses protect public media as much as individual persons but what you say on social media will still be used against you.

And talking about freedom of press, France doesn't look that bad at all. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#260

Post by greatpatton »

Scoundreller wrote: post #230
mcrae wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t think so. I’ve used Korean, French, and Canadian cards with no issues in the US at gas stations. Meanwhile, good luck getting gas or paying tolls in France without a French or other EU card. French companies are also terrible at accepting non-French SEPA zone accounts. By law, they should accept all IBANs but their websites bork when it’s not French. Infuriating.

It’s usually a pay-at-pump issue. Paying inside has always worked for me when US pumps rejected my non-US card.

Exactly pay-at-pump is just not working with European cards most of the time (not always true as I was able to find one working in Phoenix). Paying inside is fine, but a hassle as you have to estimate the amount of gas you need for a rental car you barely know.

By the way, in Florida you don't even have to wonder about a credit card at the toll as it is Sunpass/pay by plate or cash only...

Post reply on HN