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

151–160 of 239 posts

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

#151

Post by encryptluks2 »

octopoc wrote: post #91
tasha0663 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Can you really blame the people that are spoon fed fearporn from the media everyday and in a constant state of stockholm syndrome, while also being led to believe we live in a two-party state (right vs left), from picking a side? They are victims too but just don't know it yet.

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

#153

Post by encryptluks2 »

grapescheesee wrote: post #86
tasha0663 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is interesting how the prior comment you made was flagged and is dead. It does not share this direct stance. I agree, trust in our institutions is a vital necessity, and it is very easy to lose and hard to gain. This can't be seen as unrelated since it shows the dictates of the company and the the level of coverup and legal maneuvering they use. The only reason anyone was paid from the lawsuit with talc and asbest…

Which is why the government getting rid of the liability shield for vaccine manufacturers would have been the smartest and most reasonable action they could have taken to increase percentage of vaccinated population if it was really about public health.

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

#154

Post by drzaiusapelord »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #101
londons_explore wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't think it was ever illegal to say things that were true, justified, and in the public interest to have spoken. Could you give some examples (or point me at the relevant laws) please?

There really arent any. Hate speech isn't "true" regardless of your basement phrenologists Roganism's that this race or that ethnicity is "inferior" to a white person due to skull or brain size. Or doctored studies that purposely dont take poverty and other things into account.

The other category is libel/slander which is properly protected in the UK where a real burden of proof is put on the person making the claim, meanwhile in the USA, "news" shows lie with impunity, and almost always for the benefit of the oligarchy.

Its a better system than the USA's and by far. Right-wing types, who also dominate this forum, dislike it because it limits the lies and racism and islomaphobia they so deeply identify with, and is reinforced to them by the dishonest right-wing media they consume which has almost no limits on dishonest or hateful speech in the USA. So its an ugly cycle of extremists radicalizing new extremists for political gain (read: faithful GOP voters) by the billionaire owners of these media outlets who gain from these narratives both politically and economically.

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

#155

Post by encryptluks2 »

strogonoff wrote: post #147
encryptluks2 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the government is happy to shield them from liability when it comes to vaccines.

Governments belong in the same bucket as companies, from the point of view of actual journalism.

I can't disagree with that, governments (cities, etc) are really just companies that the citizens work for once we are born.

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

#156

Post by FloNeu »

pyuser583 wrote: post #150
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, one violates freedom of the press, and the other violates freedom of speech. Both are protected by the first amendment.

No post body was provided.

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

#157

Post by ciphol »

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…

Luckily, you don't have to trust the pharmaceutical companies any more. You just have to look at the outcomes of literally billions of people who have been vaccinated, and see how much better those outcomes are on average compared to unvaccinated people:

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

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

#158

Post by BurningFrog »

daenz wrote: post #56
throwaway09223 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But "who judges the judges?", to paraphrase the ancient wise question.

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

#159

Post by Supermancho »

dekhn wrote: post #16
moltar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer

I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.

European studies have already made studies around this[1]. J&J is simply trying to fight the same battle, again, in the US.

[1]https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2018/05000/...).

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

#160

Post by Supermancho »

dekhn wrote: post #50
UncleMeat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a civil suit. If Johnson and Johnson was so confident that there was no harm caused by their products, why go through all this trouble?

because civil suits that find them guilty could make them go out of business even if they did nothing wrong.

> because civil suits that find them guilty could make them go out of business

That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive.

Post reply on HN