Live data from Hacker News

J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

reuters.com

31–40 of 239 posts

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#31

I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. Regardless of the direct correlation or none at all to the 'contaminated' talc they were selling as a product with baby in the name, and it verifiable contained asbestos. I think…

No post body was provided.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#32

I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. Regardless of the direct correlation or none at all to the 'contaminated' talc they were selling as a product with baby in the name, and it verifiable contained asbestos. I think…

No post body was provided.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#33
Pharma companies get away with way too much. No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people, some of the time. But charge everyone same, with no refunds when the product doesn't work. And you can't even sue if it causes you harm.

The new development to use the power of the courts and government to mandate their use should give you pause.

The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the covid Vaccine is something like 1%. And that was before Omicron.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#35
Wow. A prior restraint injunction would be kinda unconstitutional for going against the 1st a.

National security is the primary injunctive exception, which can be avoided by handing documents to something like WikiLeaks.

I guess JNJ's lawyers were desperate and so took a gamble on maneuvering without considering the optics.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#36

So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.

"you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something." You can't, in theory. In practice this sort of thing happens all the time. I had a judge issue a clearly unconstitutional order limiting my speech (there was no action on my part leading up to this, it was a broad order applying to more than just me). My lawyer's take was that while it was clearly not allowed, it wasn't particularly important…

That makes we wonder how many essentially invisible to the public cases this kind of restraint we have in the system.

It seem like all it takes is a plausible legal theory that could be dragged out combined with enough financial clout to make the defendant give.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#37
post #26

So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.

Here is a recent successful injunction delaying publication: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.h... Though it didn’t last long.

It lasted all about two weeks and the judge basically embarrassed himself by granting it in the first place. He reversed himself in anticipation of being bench slapped by the appellate court. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge... (note that in New York, the lower courts are the "Supreme Court", very confusing).

But you're right, there's always a judge stupid enough out there to do something outrageously illegal.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#38

So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.

the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this I wouldn't be surprised. My mother worked for the VP a company that was involved in a lawsuit that went on for decades. It was commonly known in the company that the lawsuit was being deliberately dragged out for the benefit of the opposition's lawyers, and that the case was even handed down as a kind of sick inheritance from father-to-son as people retired. I've on…

"I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies. "

It seems the incentive for lawers as a group is, make everything more complicated for everyone else, so everyone else is more dependant on lawers to do anything at all.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#39

So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.

Reuters is a UK company and freedom of press is quite limited there. But a US federal judge of course would be the wrong party to turn to for leveraging this.
Post reply on HN