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

211–220 of 239 posts

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

#211

Post by denton-scratch »

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?

Ah, "in the public interest". There's no such provision in thew USA, and it's a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions (a member of the government) to determine what is in the public interest.

It is absolutely forbidden to report on family court proceedings; there is no public interest defence.

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

#212

Post by [deleted] »

tedivm wrote: post #98
alistairSH wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#213

Post by tasha0663 »

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…

> It is interesting how the prior comment you made was flagged and is dead. It does not share this direct stance.

Indeed! Currently in the red on fake internet points, but not flagged to the twilight zone. Also more replies and engagement. My interpretation of this outcome is still pending :D

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

#214

Post by mxz3000 »

jdasdf wrote: post #93
bitcharmer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You must be trolling. European countries are considered the most free in the world.

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort...

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

#215

Post by KennyBlanken »

borski wrote: post #177
KennyBlanken wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentence you conveniently left out leaves out the context of "assume good faith": > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That does not, in any way, say "assume anecdotes are trustworthy." Nowhere in the rules does it say or even imply this. It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith;…

1) I am not saying it is proof or a valid argument. I am saying we should not assume the poster is lying just because they’re uncomfortable providing details about something that is likely personal or legal in nature. 2) That there are HN commenters who don’t follow the guidelines doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. 3) I did not “conveniently” leave out that sentence, which implies malice on my part. I left it out because…

> I left it out because I deemed it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

The scope of that sentence assigned to it by the only other sentence in that paragraph was indeed "irrelevant" to your claim "assume good faith" is a general policy for HN comments.

It was beyond disingenuous, and you're still being disingenuous; you're now shifting the goalposts.

> As before: please try to assume good faith.

You selectively quoted in a way that radically changed meaning in order to chastise another user making a comment you didn't like. This isn't a matter of "faith." You're running around telling other people how to act.

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

#217

Post by dghlsakjg »

xdennis wrote: post #166
pessimizer wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on if you think that freedom of speech should only be for multi-millionaires.

I'm not sure what you mean. Personally I believe that individuals should have more freedom of speech protections than corporations or media companies because of the power imbalance.

I think what they're getting at is that defending yourself in court is not easy or free even if you have the truth on your side.

A determined litigant can bury you in paperwork, costs, and other hindrances to the point that your speech is essentially surpressed. The OP case is a good example.

Showing up to contest the requested inunction likely cost a lot more than the story is worth. J+J knew they were going to lose this, but they wanted to remind the publisher that they need a lawyer on speed dial. As much as journalists and editors claim they aren't cowed by this kind of behavior, you can bet that they will tread carefully around j+j in the future

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

#218

Post by thaumasiotes »

smorgusofborg wrote: post #204
thaumasiotes wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they both violate freedom of the press.

No, only one violates the generally accepted freedoms of the press: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Legally they are the same action, and they obviously violate the same laws. Specifically, they violate the prohibition on restricting someone's freedom to engage in the mass-production of speech, which is known as "freedom of the press". What are you trying to say with the public figure link?

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

#219

Post by shocking »

I am truly shocked to learn that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder might cause cancer.

This is from a company whose vaccines every single politician and journalist in the western world has assured us that they are 100% effective and safe. Can't the people who developed those vaccines in 6 months talk to the baby powder people to make sure they reach the same level of safety and effectiveness?

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

#220

Post by shocking »

mpyne wrote: post #40
adamrezich wrote: post #34

can 2022 be the year we go back to being distrustful of multinational for-profit pharmaceutical corporations please

Indeed, you can never tell what those companies put in their Ivermectin and HCQ tablets these days.

The benefit of repurposing drugs is precisely that we have decades of safety profile data. That's why those are particularly interesting against emerging diseases, especially for low income countries.

Obviously that's an issue for big pharma since they're not competitive when it comes to pure manufacturing of cheap drugs.

Post reply on HN