Get mad at the court that forced them to take the story down not at Reuters.
just a minor clarification. the court did not order the article to he taken down. the court just said that the article constitutes defamation.
it was Reuter's decision to therefore take down the article. in OP's first link, there's info of other media houses that have also pulled such stories.
blame the scummy lawyers protecting the scumbag and his predatory behaviour.
What's the difference between the court saying it's defamation, and thus illegal to publish and worthy of awarding damages, and ordering it taken down? Seems like splitting hairs.
Reuters had a choice to reword the article (like some other media houses in OP's link have done) or retract the article. they have chosen to do the latter.
the core difference is that choice. had the court deemed that the article should have been taken down, Reuters wouldn't have even had that choice.
getting mad at the court in this case is akin to getting mad at the car that a drunk driver drove into a house. sure, it has been the proximal instrument of destruction, but it wasn't the one who veered off the road.
blame the leeching lawyers here.
I think people mad at Reuters don’t realize that they’re intentionally invoking the Streisand Effect in this case. Otherwise, today, I wouldn’t have heard anything about:
confirmed scammer Rajat Khare covering up his scammy ways
Reuters could have geoblocked the article.
I assume, stuck between a rock and a hard place, they decided that compromising with censorship was not an option, while probably hoping that the headline "Reuters removes article" would have somewhat of a striesand effect. If that was the case it seems to have worked as we're here talking about it.
Maybe, I guess it depends on the feasibility of doing that quickly. If they need to do a lot of setup for it then there might not be time
I'd be willing to bet it has less to do with the article not being available in India and that it is available at all. Let's be honest, geoblocking is a joke, especially for a news outlet. Therefore, if Reuters wants to do business in India, one of the world's largest markets, they have to take it down everywhere. Now, if I ran a news service that wrote an article they didn't like and since I'm not doing business in India, I would have the power to tell them to go pound sand. Assuming they didn't decide to go the route of burying me in legal fees here in America by hiring American lawyers to do so, that is.
Get mad at the court that forced them to take the story down not at Reuters.
just a minor clarification. the court did not order the article to he taken down. the court just said that the article constitutes defamation.
it was Reuter's decision to therefore take down the article. in OP's first link, there's info of other media houses that have also pulled such stories.
blame the scummy lawyers protecting the scumbag and his predatory behaviour.
What's the difference between the court saying it's defamation, and thus illegal to publish and worthy of awarding damages, and ordering it taken down? Seems like splitting hairs.
Reuters had a choice to reword the article (like some other media houses in OP's link have done) or retract the article. they have chosen to do the latter.
the core difference is that choice. had the court deemed that the article should have been taken down, Reuters wouldn't have even had that choice.
getting mad at the court in this case is akin to getting mad at the car that a drunk driver drove into a house. sure, it has been the proximal instrument of destruction, but it wasn't the one who veered off the road.
blame the leeching lawyers here.
I think people mad at Reuters don’t realize that they’re intentionally invoking the Streisand Effect in this case. Otherwise, today, I wouldn’t have heard anything about:
Reuters could have geoblocked the article.
I assume, stuck between a rock and a hard place, they decided that compromising with censorship was not an option, while probably hoping that the headline "Reuters removes article" would have somewhat of a striesand effect. If that was the case it seems to have worked as we're here talking about it.
Maybe, I guess it depends on the feasibility of doing that quickly. If they need to do a lot of setup for it then there might not be time
I'd be willing to bet it has less to do with the article not being available in India and that it is available at all. Let's be honest, geoblocking is a joke, especially for a news outlet. Therefore, if Reuters wants to do business in India, one of the world's largest markets, they have to take it down everywhere. Now, if I ran a news service that wrote an article they didn't like and since I'm not doing business in India, I would have the power to tell them to go pound sand. Assuming they didn't decide to go the route of burying me in legal fees here in America by hiring American lawyers to do so, that is.
I was thinking the same thing, but then I saw "globally". They probably could have just taken it down in India, right?
Does Reuters actually operate in India? What’s stopping them just ignoring a blatantly immoral ruling?
They operate pretty literally everywhere.
But yeah, appeasing the totalitarian demands of the fascist Modi government and its pet courts is not the way to go.
Yes, they do.