Lawrence Lessig Sues New York Times For Defamation Over Jeffrey Epstein Donation Story (thewrap.com) 65
Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig sued the New York Times for defamation on Monday, claiming a story about Jeffrey Epstein's donations to MIT that referenced Lessig amounted to "clickbait." The Wrap reports: The story in question was published on Sept. 14, 2019 under the headline, "A Harvard Professor Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein's Money, Do It in Secret." Its lede, or introduction, read, "It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying." The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts, states, 'Defendants' actions here are part of a growing journalistic culture of clickbaiting: the use of a shocking headline and/or lede to entice readers to click on a particular article, irrespective of the truth of the headline. Defendants are fully aware that many, if not most, readers never read past the clickbait and that their takeaway concerning the target of the headline is limited to what they read in the headline." It also states that Lessig asked the paper to change the headline and lede, but his request was not granted.
In a Medium blog post published concurrently with the lawsuit, Lessig contended that an essay he wrote, which was the central conversation piece for the interview the Times' story was based on, calls soliciting money from convicted sex offenders a "mistake." Lessig argues that the Times' headline suggests the exact opposite. His essay argued if institutions take money from such individuals, the donors should be anonymous. He added that the "mistake" he wrote about would result in "the kind of harm it would trigger in both victims and women generally." A Times spokesperson told TheWrap that "senior editors reviewed the story after Professor Lessig complained and were satisfied that the story accurately reflected his statements. We plan to defend against the claim vigorously."
In a Medium blog post published concurrently with the lawsuit, Lessig contended that an essay he wrote, which was the central conversation piece for the interview the Times' story was based on, calls soliciting money from convicted sex offenders a "mistake." Lessig argues that the Times' headline suggests the exact opposite. His essay argued if institutions take money from such individuals, the donors should be anonymous. He added that the "mistake" he wrote about would result in "the kind of harm it would trigger in both victims and women generally." A Times spokesperson told TheWrap that "senior editors reviewed the story after Professor Lessig complained and were satisfied that the story accurately reflected his statements. We plan to defend against the claim vigorously."
tough one (Score:5, Insightful)
One the one hand, that is almost literally what he said, on the other hand, they changed it just enough to imply that he was somehow on Epstein's side and defending him.
Maybe the real lesson is, "don't talk to reporters".
His Medium post does a good job of comparing sentences side by side.
Re:tough one (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the real lesson is, "don't talk to reporters".
You almost got it. So close.
The real lesson is don't listen to reporters. The news is fiction "inspired by true events". Always has been. If you trust any part of the newspaper other than the sports page, you're just not paying attention. (Readers care very strongly if the paper gets the score of a game wrong, and will give the paper no end of grief over it. Any other topic? Readers don't much care if it's wrong, as long as it's comfortable.)
Half-life of lies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the real lesson is, "don't talk to reporters".
You almost got it. So close.
The real lesson is don't listen to reporters. The news is fiction "inspired by true events". Always has been. If you trust any part of the newspaper other than the sports page, you're just not paying attention. (Readers care very strongly if the paper gets the score of a game wrong, and will give the paper no end of grief over it. Any other topic? Readers don't much care if it's wrong, as long as it's comfortable.)
Not far enough. Every source of information should be evaluated in terms of credibility and integrity. That includes the Twitter or Facebook "friend" who is propagating news that you want to believe. Actually, too easily believing what you want to believe is the biggest risk.
However, there is a big difference in that journalists don't have much in the way of assets. Basically comes down to integrity and credibility. Do you think the journalist has the integrity to find the truth? Do you trust the journalist
Re: tough one (Score:1)
Re: tough one (Score:2)
Re:tough one (Score:5, Informative)
Donald Trump? The man who kicked Epstein out of his golf club for underage assault?
https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/... [nypost.com]
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
No, the one who said he knew the guy for over 15 years and understood he liked women on the younger side [wp.com]. The same guy who visited Epstein's place and had Epstein over at his place.
Re:tough one (Score:5, Informative)
And then banned him from his golf courses after he found out what Epstein was up to.
How hard is that to understand?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
And then banned him from his golf courses after he found out what Epstein was up to.
False. The reason the con artist kicked him out was because Epstein disrespected some of the staff. Epstein's predilections had nothing to do with it.
Further, you mean to tell us that for fifteen years the con artist, who visited Epstein's place on numerous occasions, didn't know what was going on?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But we need to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think Trump was ever in the dark as to what Epstein was up to. What changed was that by 2011 Epstein had been convicted of sex crimes and been to jail, so he was bad for the Trump brand: real Trumpers don't get caught.
Re: (Score:3)
You countered a news article with a meme?
Re: (Score:2)
Liking young women is different from liking under-age women, they are not equivalent statements.
Re:tough one (Score:4, Informative)
The very first paragraph of your own link:
"Jeffrey Epstein turned Donald Trumpâ(TM)s Mar-a-Lago into another of his hunting grounds for young girls, leading Trump to bar him from the Florida resort, court papers claim."
(Emphasis mine)
So it's a claim, and you should make that fact clear when reporting it.
The papers claim Epstein was banned because he sexually assaulted someone, although it doesn't say they were underage. I think you got confused because the guy suing him is representing his underage victims, but the specific assault he was allegedly banned for may not have been against an underage person.
If you are going to complain about poor reporting then you should at least carefully read the very short article you link to and then post an accurate summary of it yourself.
Re:tough one (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, Lessig makes a pretty good case pointing out that what he wrote is exactly the opposite of what the Times claimed.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If something is unclear, you don't get to assume it means whatever sells the most newspapers.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that's exactly how modern news worked.
Remember that SuperMicro story from Bloomberg?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the very important conclusion to the first paragraph you quoted: Were I king, I would ban non-anonymous gifts of type 3 or type 4.
Where you see weird wording, I see a dearth of reading comprehension.
I don't have a stake in this argument at all, nor am I trying to pillory you personally. It just seems clear to me that taken as a whole Mr. Lessig firmly sits on the side of 'against'.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the very important conclusion to the first paragraph you quoted: Were I king, I would ban non-anonymous gifts of type 3 or type 4.
Where you see weird wording, I see a dearth of reading comprehension.
I don't have a stake in this argument at all, nor am I trying to pillory you personally. It just seems clear to me that taken as a whole Mr. Lessig firmly sits on the side of 'against'.
This does not undermine the thesis, it actually supports it. He addresses that specifically (in the post you're responding to):
This kinda would be believable if it wasn't for his first paragraph I quoted above, where it does sound as if he has no problem at all with the acceptance of blood money anonymously. He'd ban donations that aren't anonymous, not ban blood money.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that if they are going to accept blood money (type 4) or the money from people convicted of a crime (type 3), they should only ever accept that money anonymously.
That sounds pretty much like the Times' "If You Take Epstein's Money, Do It in Secret". He's going to have a hard time making his case against the Times when he himself said that. Another quote (Epstein is a type 3 in Lessig's taxonomy):
IF you are going to take type 3 money, then you should only take it anonymously
And before I get beaten up over this, I have no attachment to either side of this case, just looking at the facts to see what the chances are, and I think Lessig will have a hard time convincing a
Re: (Score:1)
That sounds pretty much like the Times' "If You Take Epstein's Money, Do It in Secret".
There are lots of ways to donate anonymously. If the donating sorce knows that is is from a type 3(Epstein) reject the money. But if Epstein in turn donates that money in an anonymous fashion to where the source accepting the money does no know whom then the money will be accepted.
No where did Lessig state, "Don't accept his money then coach him on how to donate anonymously." Lessig could say "Epstein didn't donate money, as we don't accept money from felons. If he did donate anonymously, we would never
Re: (Score:2)
And you seem to miss the very salient conclusion to the paragraph you quoted: Were I king, I would ban non-anonymous gifts of type 3 or type 4.
I don't have a dog in this race either, but one thing is quite clear, Mssr. Lessig does not write in the simplistic manner to which the internet age has become accustomed. Taken as a whole, it is clear to me that he comes down on the side of 'against'.
squiggleslash above makes the same mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
And you seem to miss the very salient conclusion to the paragraph you quoted: Were I king, I would ban non-anonymous gifts of type 3 or type 4.
That's just reinforcing even more strongly what he's already said, if you're a type 3 or 4 and going to donate, do it anonymously, it makes his position even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the Slashdot summary also got it wrong, I think the only lesson to draw from this is that if you write or say anything at more than a circa grade four language comprehension level, the media is going to screw it up.
Re: (Score:2)
M. P. U. with a double !! to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
Donor Should Never Be Anonymous (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the not so esteemed professor is really rather confused about click bait. The whole concept of clickbait is to click and then read on, so yeah, it is click bait to click and READ the story. So most people never read past the click bait after clicking, if that were true it would not be clickbait, is would be yeah olde tabloid headline, where they put a big headline in the tabloid to get you to 'buy' the tabloid and read the story.
Money is tainted by it's source that is a fact, from legal as in the proceeds from crime, as in receiving stolen property, to well the income from a sex extortionist who specialised in child abuse extortion, that money is a tainted as fuck and should be returned to the victims. No donation should be anonymous, it's source should be tracked and the research it funds should be monitored. Especially as some of the research related to analysing for mental illness as early as possible in children, hey good story right but not when associated with a kiddy fiddler, why would he want to fund that research, to search for victims to abuse.
Whether the researcher is aware or not, the researcher would have been providing a tool to an abuser to make it easier for them to abuse more victims. Good people would use it to try to treat conditions early bad people would use it to search out potential easy to abuse victims. So researcher and donor should never be anonymous.
Re:Donor Should Never Be Anonymous (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the not so esteemed professor is really rather confused about click bait.
I think he understand the concept just fine. As a law professor and practicing lawyer he also understand the concepts of slander and libel quite well.
This is an area where the US does rather badly, and most of the civilized world is better. While it can be taken too far, statements that defame or injure people are generally unlawful around the globe. In the US, showing any tiny nugget of truth is generally (but not always) enough for a defense. A carefully worded statement that you can claim was your opinion, no matter how defamatory, usually satisfies First Amendment muster. In the UK, Canada, and most other nations based on British common law, as well as most EU nations, the overall nature of the statement is considered; even if factually true a malicious statement can be unlawful. Although sometimes various nations take it too far in protecting business interests over factual statements, sometimes the US takes it too far in the other direction.
It is an area of the First Amendment that American media loves to hide behind. It may be in this case, slandering a law professor who has repeatedly testified before the SCOTUS may have been a poorly chosen target.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the not so esteemed professor is really rather confused about click bait.
I think he understand the concept just fine. As a law professor and practicing lawyer ...
... he understands how to twist the truth and pretend to be an injured party to score a big payday from someone with deep pockets.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This leans quite heavily towards a certain Bible quote about he who is without sin throwing the first stone.
Just how tainted do you think money is allowed to be for it to be okay to donate?
Money that comes from killing someone, no way. Umm ... what about government grants that may be related to oil in the Middle East?
Money from companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple etc. But ... what about their anti-competitive behavior?
Money from people like Epstein that was earned from things other than his less than sa
Re: Donor Should Never Be Anonymous (Score:2)
This leans quite heavily towards a certain Bible quote about he who is without sin throwing the first stone.
I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head there.
This is the substantial question that is raised by this scenario - should a person be judged only by their sins, when we are all inevitably sinners?
I think you could argue that it is this question that underpins the central thesis of Western Civilization: that every individual must have the chance of redemption for their misdeeds and thus the possibility of ultimately becoming a good person.
From this simple principle, flows most of the founding p
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lawrence, like RMS, misses the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right... but you're missing the point.
Yes, the teeming masses totally eat this stuff up. That doesn't make it right.
NY Times Admits Fault (Score:1)
Re:Lawrence, like RMS, misses the point. (Score:5, Informative)
The Slashdot summary is *also* wrong. What Lessig actually said:
He didn't say it's okay to take anonymously. He specifically said that it's a mistake to take the donation, even if anonymously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for doing their job. +1.
Re: (Score:2)
The Slashdot summary is *also* wrong. What Lessig actually said:
He didn't say it's okay to take anonymously. He specifically said that it's a mistake to take the donation, even if anonymously.
Your comment is also (*also also?*) wrong. What Lessig actually, actually said is in this comment above [slashdot.org]. Your quote above, while factual, is incomplete. The poster above makes the point that the situation is more nuanced than either Lessig or the Times claim it is (though he ultimately concludes that the Times is closer to right).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Should a starving/homeless man stay hungry/homeless because the person that wants to help them doesn't meet some third-party's definition of who is good enough to donate? Will charities be forced to institute background checks on anyone that donates over $1000?
How big a problem is this? How many rich felons are trying to donate money?
The only time a charity needs to be concerned is when a donors name is going on plaque or a building.
It's not THEIR fault! (Score:2)
The problem is that of the bitchy portion of the population who shouldn't be allowed on any campus or listened to by the rest of us. It's those people with the problem who create problems for others. It's blaming the victim -- a women can wear a biki if she wants to it's NOT her fault if the men can't control themselves. Yes, she is taking a risk and shouldn't be surprised if somebody misbehaves when among a bad crowd but the blame is 100% on them not her.
An academic making an argument or a lawyer making
Lessig always has an odd take (Score:2)
I think often he is a good guy and he might be right on this, but his take on this and in many of his fights for good seem a wrong take. It seems he is always on the correct feels, but the arguments he has are weak and never well supported.
The New York Times has always been skewed journalism and their 'reporting' never to be fully trusted.
Re:Lessig always has an odd take (Score:4, Informative)
Lessig actually said:
[...] I believe it was a mistake to take this money [from Epstein], even if anonymous.
The fine summary and the NYT got it backwards implying he supported taking anonymous donations from the likes of Epstein. This is why Lessig is suing the NYT.
Lessig was spot on. The NYT and (unsurprisingly the /. summary) were wrong about what Lessig said.
Loser. (Score:1)
Won't work in an honest court.
Re: (Score:1)
Speech is just speech. Let's make the audience accountable for their reactions
The donation is never anonymous (Score:3)
Unless he leaves a bag of money on the doorstep they know damn well where it came from. So talking about anonymity is disingenuous. He is saying take the blood money and pretend you didn't know where it came from, but you do and it will cause quid pro quo. Consciously or unconsciously.
Pretend anonymity doesn't protect you from the moral hazard, it just protects you from bad PR.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretend anonymity might actually get shady people who don't know whether their money is welcome or not to donate -- because if they get refused, it won't be made public, and if they get accepted, then their influence won't be publicly known. While these reasons are almost exclusively negative, it's unlikely to look that way to the organization taking the money.
In other words, if you're going to be amoral, you might as well do it in such a way as to maximally benefit from it.
Sorry, lose-lose for Lessig (Score:1)