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
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: