.png)
How To Support TechdirtWe’re so grateful that so many of you have supported Techdirt over the years, and we’ve set up many different ways to let you do so. Sometimes we get asked which one is the “best” way to support Techdirt — and the true answer is: whichever one you feel most comfortable with. That’s one of the reasons we have so many options. Find one that appeals to you, and go for it!
Perhaps the most straightforward way to support Techdirt is by becoming a Techdirt Insider. There are options for one-time and recurring payments, and you can get some neat benefits like seeing stories early via the Techdirt Crystal Ball or chatting with other subscribers in our Insider Chat.
If you prefer to support Techdirt with a straight donation, the Friend of Techdirt option at the Insider Shop is the easiest way to do so. Choose your amount, click buy, and decide whether or not you want to “activate” your Insider Membership to get a badge on your Techdirt profile.
Our Patreon page is officially in support of our podcast, but it’s also a great way to show your general support for Techdirt — and we know that many people prefer to use Patreon for recurring monthly payments because they already have an account and it’s easy and convenient to use. Patrons also get access to exclusive bonus episodes of the podcast!
Techdirt t-shirts, hoodies and other gear are available via Teespring, and we’ve also got some designs that are exclusive to our artist shop on Threadless. We offer a wide variety of designs including the Techdirt logo and various gear for expressing your opinion on issues we know are important to our readers.
The CIA designed a classified card game which they use to train their analysts. They recently declassified it and we’ve adapted the game so you can play it, too. We ran a successful Kickstarter campaign to fund development of the game, and you can now purchase it here.
We’ve partnered with one of the most popular VPN providers out there, Private Internet Access, to offer you a chance to get free access to the Techdirt Crystal Ball when you sign up. Protect some privacy, and benefit Techdirt at the same time.
Techdirt Deals »
The Techdirt Deals store is a partnership with Stack Commerce where we offer up a variety of devices, gadgets, software, services and courses that are likely to be interesting to our audience. We get a cut of all sales through the store.
✓
Lachlan Murdoch Is Big Mad That Crikey Called Him Out On His Bullshit; So Now He’s Suing To Shut Them Up
from the australia-is-the-upside-down dept
.jpg)
from the australia-is-the-upside-down dept
Earlier this week, the popular Australian news publication Crikey, published what it is referring to as “The Lachlan Murdoch letters.” Lachlan Murdoch, as you likely know, is one of Rupert Murdoch’s sons, and who has increasingly been taking over the worst aspects of Murdoch’s approach to dividing society and profiting off of the carnage: namely Fox News.
.jpg)
It began with an article that Crikey published on June 29th with the provocative title: Trump is a confirmed unhinged traitor. And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator. The piece takes the evidence coming out of the January 6th Committee regarding Trump. It actually barely even mentions any of the Murdochs. It focuses on much of the evidence about how Trump was literally encouraging the overthrowing of American democracy, but concludes with this:
The Murdochs and their slew of poisonous Fox News commentators are the unindicted co-conspirators of this continuing crisis.
I mean, that’s pure commentary and opinion. It barely names the Murdochs, and doesn’t even call out Lachlan specifically.
.jpg)
Lahclan Murdoch loses his shit over this throwaway line:
Crikey says they pulled down the article a day after it was originally published, after receiving a legal threat letter from Lachlan Murdoch.
They published a copy of the initial threat letter that Murdoch sent them which lays out the basic claims — which are absolutely ridiculous (though I will note that Crikey has made it difficult to download that threat letter, which is a pain). Out of that one single line in the original Crikey article — really a throwaway line at the end — little melty snowflake Lachlan Murdoch claims there are FOURTEEN “defamatory imputations.”
- Mr Murdoch illegally conspired with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 presidential election result;
- Mr Murdoch illegally conspired with Donald Trump to incite an armed mob to march on the Capitol to physically prevent confirmation of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election;
- Mr Murdoch illegally conspired with Donald Trump to incite a mob with murderous intent to march on the Capitol;
- Mr Murdoch illegally conspired with Donald Trump to break the laws of the United States of America in relation to the 2020 presidential election result;
- Mr Murdoch knowingly entered into a criminal conspiracy with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 presidential election result;
- Mr Murdoch knowingly entered into a criminal conspiracy with Donald Trump and a large number of Fox News commentators to overturn the 2020 election result;
- Mr Murdoch engaged in treachery and violent intent together with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 presidential election result;
- Mr Murdoch was aware of how heavily armed many of the attendees of the planned rally and march on the Capitol building were on January 6 before it occurred;
- Mr Murdoch was a co-conspirator in a plot with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election result which cost people their lives;
- Mr Murdoch has conspired with Donald Trump to commit the offence of treason against the United States of America to overturn the 2020 election outcome;
- Mr Murdoch has conspired with Donald Trump to commit the offence of being a traitor to the United States of America to overturn the 2020 election outcome;
- Mr Murdoch should be indicted with conspiracy to commit the offence of being a traitor to the United States of America to overturn the 2020 election outcome;
- Mr Murdoch should be indicted with the offence of being a traitor to the United States of America to overturn the 2020 election outcome
- Mr Murdoch conspired with Donald Trump to lead an armed mob on Congress to overturn the 2020 election outcome.
.jpg)
Nah, dude. It was one throwaway sentence at the end of a long article. No one without a very, very guilty conscience would think any of that. Most normal people read the original article and recognized that it called out real evidence of actual criminal behavior on the part of the former President and was simply calling out your shit channel, Fox News, for misleading the public about all of it, and egging on the anger of a portion of the gullible electorate — and then cashing in on it all. But, I mean, Lachlan, if you get the other 14 things above out of that article, that kinda speaks a lot to your own demons.
Australian defamation law is ridiculous and censorial, but may be changing…
And, at this point, it’s important to make a brief aside to discuss Australian defamation law. It’s sometimes difficult to understand just how upside down Australia is regarding regulation of speech. Australian defamation law is some of the most extreme and absurd that we’ve seen. At the very least, it heavily favors the plaintiff, allows for very broad claims of opinion to be considered defamatory (for example by saying that the mere “imputation” of negative ideas about a person could be defamatory).
That said, just last year most of Australia started using new “Model Defamation Amendment provisions” that sought to raise the barriers to censorial SLAPP-style suits that had become common in Australia, and to require plaintiffs to show “serious harm” from the commentary, and FINALLY offering up a “public interest” defense.
Crikey strikes back:
Anyway, it appears that Crikey was stewing on this legal bullying by Lachlan to suppress pretty mild criticism, looking at the changes to Australian defamation law, and then decided “fuck it.” They republished the article along with a series of other articles starting with an open letter to Lachlan Murdoch, which is pretty short and to the point:
Dear Lachlan,
As you know, nearly two months ago Crikey published a piece of commentary about the sorry state of US politics, and the January 6 insurrection, that mentioned the Murdoch family name twice.
You responded through your lawyer with a series of letters in which you accused us of defaming you personally in that story.
Crikey is an independent Australian news website, launched in 2000, covering politics, media and public issues. We at Crikey strongly support freedom of opinion and public interest journalism. We are concerned that Australia’s defamation laws are too restrictive.
Today in Crikey, we are publishing all the legal demands and accusations from your lawyer, and the replies from our lawyers, in full, so people can judge your allegations for themselves.
We want to defend those allegations in court. You have made it clear in your lawyer’s letters you intend to take court action to resolve this alleged defamation.
We await your writ so that we can test this important issue of freedom of public interest journalism in a courtroom.
Yours sincerely,
It kicks off with a much more direct and stronger condemnation of Murdoch’s role in the January 6th insurrection. Remember, the original just kind of had a throwaway “unindicted coconspirator” line at the very end. The new one tackles Lachlan’s role head on. Here’s just a snippet:
It’s no exaggeration to say that Fox News is an existential threat to US democracy. Its entire business model has been to stoke, amplify and feed a perverse sense of victimhood among its target audience of older white Americans — the most privileged people on the planet — and convince them they and the values they hold dear are under threat.
The source of that threat? “Liberals”, people of colour, migrants, feminists, LGBTIQA+ people, the “woke”, Democrats, climate scientists, and moderate Republicans, among others. The mechanism of the threat? An amorphous plot by these “elites” to destroy the American way of life and freedom.
Fox News was present at the creation of the Tea Party movement. It was a vehicle for its bastard offspring, the birther movement. Then it went all in for Trump. Inevitably, it became a vehicle for pandemic and vaccine denialism. This pandering to grievance and promotion of division meant it commanded the biggest cable TV audiences in the US and made billions for the Murdochs.
It goes on from there and gets pretty damning:
The Murdochs, their staffers in the propaganda outlets they own, and their supporters will all insist they merely support free speech. As we’ve seen demonstrated over and over in Australia, the News Corp idea of free speech is free speech for them and their allies and for the views they endorse. But should anyone use free speech to express a viewpoint News Corp disagrees with, or to attack News Corp’s allies, then they risk becoming the target of a torrent of vicious public attacks. Yassmin Abdel-Magied. Roz Ward. Gillian Triggs. Robert Manne. Paul Barry. Julian Disney. Just to name a few.
At News Corp, free speech is for punching down, never for punching up. It’s for speaking power to truth, not truth to power.
There’s much more in the larger collection of stories, including calling for more scrutiny on Murdoch’s role in inciting January 6th, as well as his impact on Australia.
In commentary to the media, Crikey’s execs have made it clear they went all out, in part, to test these new Australian speech protections in court.
Lachlan Murdoch can’t handle a little minor criticism:
Anyway, as if to prove that he’s very much only for his own free speech — and very much against the free speech of those he disagrees with — Murdoch has now followed through on his threat and has filed a defamation lawsuit against the publication and some of its editors. You can also read the laughable complaint that he filed.
In the US, this complaint wouldn’t just be laughed out of court, there’s a decent chance that Murdoch would be paying Crikey’s legal fees.
There’s so much that’s bizarre in the complaint, but which only serves to highlight how utterly backwards Australian defamation law is. The complaint talks up what an important person Murdoch is. In the US, that would make it clear that he’s a public figure, subject to an even higher standard, since criticism of public figures is kind of a core component of the 1st Amendment. The complaint complains that Crikey staffers told another publication about his threat letter! Seriously, it goes on at length about how they talked to the Sydney Morning Herald about the threat letter.
Apparently, Lachlan Murdoch believes that when he sends legal goons to threaten you to shut up, you also are supposed to shut up about his threats.
The complaint whines that Crikey made the article “FREE TO READ” rather than put it behind a paywall.
It also complains about every social media posting Crikey made, claiming this is “republication.” This goes on for pages and pages and pages. The complaint doesn’t even mention what Murdoch found defamatory (again, that one throw away line) until almost halfway through the complaint.
The Streisand Effect Down Under
Somewhat incredibly, the complaint more or less reveals that the original article didn’t get much attention at all. According to the complaint, the article received 71 comments when it was initially published. Crikey’s first tweet about it got seven replies, 62 retweets, and 108 likes. Its second tweet about it got one comment, six retweets, and 23 likes. That’s… not exactly a story that’s gone viral.
Of course, now, thanks entirely to Lachlan Murdoch’s threat letter and follow up lawsuit, tons of people are reading about it.
Congrats to Lachlan Murdoch for making a story that made a rather mild criticism of you and what you’ve done into a massive story — inspiring a deeper look at what a shitbag you and your organization are.
A true attack on free speech
At some point, did anyone bother to remind Lachlan Murdoch that he, too, is in the news business and subject to defamation law? Remember, Fox News is already having some trouble dealing with defamation cases in the US (where defamation law is much more defendant friendly) over Dominion Voting’s claims against the company (notably, on an issue related to what Crikey is talking about).
You’d think at some point, it would get through Lachlan’s apparently thick skull, that maybe having stronger defamation laws protects him and his employees from lawsuits as well. But apparently that small hit on his ego was too much to bear and he had to sue… to drive much more attention to that original criticism, and kick off that much more scrutiny about Murdoch’s Fox News.
All while his propagandists at Fox News prattle on about how Fox News stands for free speech.
I do wonder, Lachlan, will Fox News cover how you’re currently being a censorial thug and legally attacking a small publication in Australia over mild criticism? Will Tucker Carlson have on Crikey’s publisher to talk about how Lachlan Murdoch is trying to “cancel” their publication? Will brave Sean Hannity talk up the importance of free speech while condemning Lachlan Murdoch for trying to stifle speech? Or, will they prattle on about how some hypothetical “libs” are trying to silence real Americans?
I think we all know the answer.
Filed Under: australia, defamation, free speech, imputations, lachlan murdoch, rupert murdoch, streisand effect, unindicted co-conspirator
Companies: crikey, fox news
✓
Fifth Circuit: It’s Very Fucking Definitely A Rights Violation To Arrest A Journalist For Asking Questions
from the so-very-wrong-about-everything dept
Four years ago, the Laredo Police Department arrested a citizen journalist for the crime of receiving an answer to a question she asked.
Priscilla Villarreal patrols the streets of Laredo with her camera,
reporting on police activity simply by turning on her camera during
traffic stops, arrests, and other incidents, and providing commentary.
Her reporting has drawn a crowd, albeit one somewhat removed from the
printed page. Known by her affectionate nickname of “Lagordiloca,”
Villarreal has amassed nearly 200,000 Facebook followers. . .
The Laredo PD said Villarreal “misused official information,” which is a crime. But the fact is she was given this official information by a (perhaps too leaky/friendly) Laredo police officer, who gave her the name of a Border Patrol officer who had recently committed suicide. Rather than keep its investigation of the leak internal, the Laredo PD decided to punish Villarreal for performing journalism by approaching a source (the PD officer) and asking for information about the recent suicide.
If the information was meant to remain confidential, the problem was with the person who gave Lagordiloca the information, rather than Villarreal’s publication of the info.
The opinion remains intact. All that’s been added is a very strong concurrence and an incredibly terrible dissent that indicates a federal judge would would rather punish the recipient of leaked (supposedly sensitive information) information than the government employee who leaked it. Punishment of either is extremely questionable but punishing journalists for asking questions (but only because they received answers) is beyond the constitutional pale.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 5th circuit, journalism, laredo pd, priscilla villarreal, qualified immunity, texas
✓
Creator Of Botometer Goes On Media Tour To Explain Why Elon Musk’s Claims About Bots (Using Botometer) Are Meaningless
from the convince-me-musk-is-not-a-bot dept
As you may recall, in his response to Twitter’s lawsuit trying to force him to fulfill the terms of the purchase agreement he made, Elon Musk relied on the findings of a tool called Botometer to argue that there were more bots on Twitter than Twitter was claiming. Again, I have to remind everyone, as much as Musk keeps insisting this case is about bots and spam, the actual case has nothing at all to do with bots or spam, and if you think it does, you’ve been lied to.
However, Musk is doing everything he can to confuse people, including the judge, into believing the case is about bots and spam. . . In the wake of Musk putting all of his eggs in Botometer’s basket, it appears that a creator of Botometer has been making the media rounds pointing out that Musk is a fool. . .
The BBC also spoke to Michael Kearney, who created another bot-measuring tool, Tweet Bot or Not, who pointed out the same thing Yang keeps trying to explain:
“Depending on how you define a bot, you could have anywhere from less than 1% to 20%,” he says.
“I think a strict definition would be a fairly low number. You have to factor in things like bot accounts that do exist, tweet at much higher volumes,” he said.
Of course, the reality remains that this case isn’t actually about bots and spam. Musk is leaning heavily on convincing his adoring fanbase it is, and as such, a tool like Botometer serves the job. He needs propaganda, not facts, and thus any tool will do, no matter how misused.
Filed Under: botometer, bots, elon musk, keicheng yang
Companies: twitter
✓ Why Is A British Baroness Drafting California Censorship Laws?
Policy
from the didn't-we-have-a-revolution-at-some-point dept
Thu, Aug 25th 2022 10:47am - Mike Masnick
Would you be surprised to find out that the censorial, moral panic bill based on hype and nonsense, but very likely to pass in California and potentially change how the internet functions… was actually written by a British noble with a savior complex?
Yesterday I wrote about California’s AB 2273 bill and how it is impossible to comply with, censorial, and dangerous. From what I’ve heard it’s likely to pass today, and Governor Newsom may sign it soon. The bill seems to have taken many people by surprise, and at this late moment they’re asking how the hell such a bill could have come about. I’ve been wondering the same thing myself, and started digging — and am really confused. Because, as far as I can tell, THE BILL CAME FROM A UK BARONESS, and California politicians were like “ok, yeah, cool, we’ll just take your bill and make it law here.” . . This is one of those things where the Hollywood-style narrative of the evil internet sounds good.
The problem is that the actual data debunks it. Nirit Weiss-Blatt
recently went through much of the research and found that the harms and
risks are massively overstated.
We also recently highlighted some research that suggests the claims
that social media is increasing suicide rates among teens is not actually supported by the data.
And, indeed, as we’ve noted countless times, the oft-quoted leaked
research from Frances Haugen that showed that Instagram made some teen
girls feel bad about themselves also showed that it made many more feel
better about themselves. That’s not to say that this stuff shouldn’t be
studied, or that companies shouldn’t be a lot more thoughtful in how
their tools are to be used. But the facile narrative that social media
is just bad for kids is nonsense. .
✓
Daily Deal: The 2022 Big Data Visualization Toolkit Bundle
from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept
The 2022 Big Data Visualization Toolkit Bundle has 7 courses to help you learn data analytics. Courses cover Tableau, Alteryx, Python, Qlik Sense, and more. It’s on sale for $39.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
Filed Under: daily deal
✓
✓
✓
.gif)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
0
