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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 239 posts

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

#51

Post by throwaway09223 »

daenz wrote: post #43
throwaway09223 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

If you feel comfortable elaborating, can you explain broadly the purpose for the judge's order? I have heard stories of judges doing things like that during the time period of a divorce or custody battle.

I'm not going to elaborate other than to say my speech was restrained due to someone else's actions, but family court is definitely an area where common practice has strayed very, very far from anything resembling constitutionality.

One such example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

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

#52

Post by thedevelopnik »

bitcharmer wrote: post #49
fulafel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> freedom of press is quite limited there Could you please be more specific? Because I've lived here for a long time and I'd call this statement utter BS.

I think the OP was trying to reference the difference between libel laws in the US and UK regarding who has the burden of proof.

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

#53

Post by errcorrectcode »

grapescheesee wrote: post #25

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…

In the US EUAs at the beginning, for me, it was 95% the technology and 5% the manufacturer convinced me mRNA vaccines were superior because of their precisely-targeted nature. It was a gamble between Pfizer and Moderna. Went with Moderna for the first 2 (before the data on "mix-and-match") and Pfizer booster.

Btw, sequencing of both mRNA vaccines:

https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV...

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

#54

Post by hutzlibu »

aaronchall wrote: post #46
hutzlibu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Although I know I'm wrong 99% of the time I sometimes get that feeling about my fellow programmers when I look at code...

Yeah, there is probably truth in that, too.

I did hear people complain about some new UI/UX, on how it makes it too easy for nontechnical people to use it.

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

#55

Post by londons_explore »

bitcharmer wrote: post #49
fulafel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> freedom of press is quite limited there Could you please be more specific? Because I've lived here for a long time and I'd call this statement utter BS.

The UK doesn't in general protect "free speech". While most things you can say, there are a bunch of things that will land you in prison, even if they are true.

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

#56

Post by daenz »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #45
dv_dt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This same judge said something along the lines of "there are no limits on my ability to issue orders until an appeals court overturns them." He was keenly aware that the issue wasn't significant enough to appeal and that his power was essentially unchecked. Lawyers are very aware of this dynamic.

This is why it is so important to have wise judges that are held to a very high moral standard.

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

#57

Post by tasha0663 »

grapescheesee wrote: post #25

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

#58

Post by mateo1 »

baybal2 wrote: post #2

How talc causes cancer?

If you inhale it or put it in your vagina. Talcum might contain asbestos fibers, caution must be taken for it to be practically asbestos-free and women should be warned, but starch is not a damn replacement for it.

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

#59

Post by hmottestad »

baybal2 wrote: post #2

How talc causes cancer?

"Asbestos is also a naturally occurring silicate mineral, but with a different crystal structure. Both talc and asbestos are naturally occurring minerals that may be found in close proximity in the earth."

https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc

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

#60

Post by dekhn »

ILMostro7 wrote: post #28
daniel_reetz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talc is often contaminated with asbestos, which is a carcinogen.

Assuming that this got down-voted because it says "contaminated", whereas the other posts here suggest that it's often used intentionally--or at least with indifference--as an ingredient.

No. Raw mined talc is processed to remove asbestos when used to baby powder. It is exceptionally unlikely that a large company would be explicitly aware of that and not modify their process (although not completely unprecedented).
Post reply on HN