Dan Gillmor (@[email protected])
mastodon.world
Reuters has taken down -- globally -- an important hacking-for-profit investigation that included details about an Indian hacking entrepreneur -- because he got a court in that country to say so. This is a huge danger to free speech and serious journalism. https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-is-killing-all-these-stories-about-rajat-khare-controversial-tech-mogul Reuters deserved praise for its initial investigation. It deserves the opposite now. (The New Yorker is apparently one of the few publications that hasn't bowed to the pressure. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-crime/a-confession-exposes-indias-secret-hacking-industry
  • xkforce@lemmy.worldEnglish
    887·
    1 year ago

    Get mad at the court that forced them to take the story down not at Reuters.

    • ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      383·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Vash63@lemmy.worldEnglish
        262·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.worldEnglish
          416·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • Corgana@startrek.websiteEnglish
        14·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      14·
      1 year ago

      I was thinking the same thing, but then I saw “globally”. They probably could have just taken it down in India, right?

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldEnglish
    681·
    1 year ago

    Gosh, it sure would be a shame if this article about confirmed scammer Rajat Khare covering up his scammy ways were shared repeatedly all over the internet. 🤷