J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by octopoc » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

tasha0663 wrote: post #74

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…

> Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. As well they should be. Feeding vaccine FUD over an unrelated incident is dangerous at a time when trust in our institutions is so vital.

J&J has a history of giving common people cancer for profit, and you think it's somehow the common people's fault for not trusting J&J? That is some pretty sick victim blaming there.

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

#92

Post by borski » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

xeromal wrote: post #80

chris_wot wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely do not have to explain themselves further. They owe you (and us) nothing.

I just mean from a debat/argument standpoint. How can someone say "No, that's incorrect, but I refuse to elaborate". Why even talk? lol

Because this isn’t a formal debate, and generally we trust in others’ firsthand experiences, especially when they link to a related article, even if it isn’t precisely the story that happened to them. The GP is, in this case, an original source and as per the HN guidelines [1] we assume good faith.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#93

Post by jdasdf » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

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.

Can you explain why you believe there is any form of free expression in the UK?

I'm genuinely asking because looking on from the outside it is clear to me that nowhere in Europe is there anything even approaching freedom of expression and conscience.

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

#94

Post by nunez » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

tyrfing wrote: post #62

dukeofdoom wrote: post #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 (AR…

Only a certain percent of people enjoy themselves on rollercoasters. Therefore, charging everyone for entry is a scam. > And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. There are 38,200 pending lawsuits against J&J solely for talc powder claims. A single one of them was $2.5 billion.

A single one of them _that included 22 women in the suit_

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

#95

Post by wizzwizz4 » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

xeromal wrote: post #81

borski wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure they can, if: a) it might get them in legal hot water, or b) it is personal and they don’t want to get into it. You’re not owed anything by anyone here, and they did bring up an example about family court and link to an article about it. :)

Seems like a lame way to bring up an example to me.

I disagree, but fair enough. Doesn't mean any of us are entitled to elaboration, though.

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

#96

Post by xeromal » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

borski wrote: post #92

xeromal wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just mean from a debat/argument standpoint. How can someone say "No, that's incorrect, but I refuse to elaborate". Why even talk? lol

Because this isn’t a formal debate, and generally we trust in others’ firsthand experiences, especially when they link to a related article, even if it isn’t precisely the story that happened to them. The GP is, in this case, an original source and as per the HN guidelines [1] we assume good faith. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thanks for linking the rules. I'll accept that.

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

#97

Post by Espressosaurus » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

xeromal wrote: post #80

chris_wot wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely do not have to explain themselves further. They owe you (and us) nothing.

I just mean from a debat/argument standpoint. How can someone say "No, that's incorrect, but I refuse to elaborate". Why even talk? lol

They gave an example with an article. That much is enough to say "this is a thing that happens" without divulging sensitive information.

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

#98

Post by tedivm » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #68

Arjuna wrote: post #47

This sounds like a similar strategy taken straight out of the Hollywood Accounting [1] playbook: “On Friday, Reuters reported that J&J secretly launched ‘Project Plato’ last year to shift liability from about 38,000 pending Baby Powder talc lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J&J could limit its financial exposure to the lawsuits.” [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.…

At least with Hollywood accounting, the subsidiary is usually created up front. This reads like J&J created the subsidiary after the fact, which IMO, shouldn’t be allowed.

It's also not uncommon to purchase an existing company, move debt over to it, and then kill it off. Late stage capitalism is an interesting phenomenon.

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

#99

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

throwaway09223 wrote: post #29

legalcorrection wrote: post #19

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…

Family court telling a father not to tweet mean things and any court telling a journalist, with a track record of publishing, not to publish, are clear and separate things.

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

#100

Post by shadowgovt » Sun, Feb 06, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

dukeofdoom wrote: post #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 (AR…

There's a reason the US has an FDA. What we're seeing here is with standards in place... Imagine the landscape with no standards or regulation.

... Or, hell, we don't even have to imagine, because we've been watching people actively try and dodge the regulations to treat a virus with livestock de-wormer because some influential people suggested it would work.