On the other end of things, I think the libel laws in the US are actually way too weak. The impunity with which the news media tells outright lies that are highly damaging to people's reputation is alarming and dangerous to public discourse.
CNN and many other outlets had headlines and articles saying that James Damore claimed that "women are biologically unfit for tech work". I can't imagine a more malicious and intentional misrepresentation, rising to outright fabrication, of what Mr. Damore wrote. Yet because Mr. Damore was a public figure (at least with regards to what he wrote), he would find it near impossible to succeed in suing the media corporations and others that smeared him with vicious lies, even though those lies are a major part of how he became a public figure in the first place.
As for the case the EFF is writing about, I wish they would have explained the actual defamation and false light allegations. I suspect that with that information, the EFF's argument wouldn't seem as obviously correct as they portray it. Or perhaps not, but the glaring omission makes you wonder.
EDIT: I'd like to add that monetary damages isn't necessarily the most important remedy for libel. If CNN had to have as their top story for a whole day an apology to Mr. Damore and admission that they lied, I think that could be an adequate remedy.
Speaking generally — to not debate the specifics of the Damore case —what you describe as “outright lies” could also be defended as being summarization or interpretation, i.e. reading between the lines. Should Republicans be sued because they claimed that Obama would support “death panels” and “death taxes” even though he literally never said those literal phrases?
But those two instances are not equivalent. As a huge fan of public health care, from a country that has it, and has deep experience with the health care system, its a known fact that a public health system will establish a panel of experts to determine best treatment for a schedule of illnesses, in some cases there may be no "best option" for a terminal illness, so none is prescribed - hence "death panels" while emotive and a long bow to draw, at least in some sense accurate. But at the least these claims should be rebuked.
I would challenge that Damore's memo in no way states anything close to "women are biologically unfit for tech work", something that was widely claimed. And instead said that reducing populations to averages to make such spurious claims is damaging, and that there maybe some biological root that explains part of the gap in engagement in tech between men and women that cause fewer women to want to join. So in this case, yes what was published against Damore, by media companies, was an "outright lie" and should be legally punished.
That healthcare debate in the U.S. never had a single-payer program. For awhile it had a government option that was eliminated before the law passed. A "death panel [of] bureaucrats"[1] would be no more true after the ACA as it was before for insurance companies. The people who were using the Death Panel rallying cry were specifically talking about requiring "Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." This is different than what you're talking about and neither could describe that legislation as creating government death panels. It got many awards for "lie of the year."
I also tried searching for your widely claimed quote
> No results found for "women are biologically unfit for tech work".
>I also tried searching for your widely claimed quote
Didn't try hard enough. "Aren't biologically fit" is the same as "biologically unfit" and I am pretty certain I remember the exact latter phrase appearing on the CNN home page, which is transient and wouldn't show up on search results anyway.
"Death tax" is a colorful way to describe the estate tax, i.e. the tax levied on your estate when you die. That's not a lie by any means.
I think your point is stronger for "death panels". But I don't think it's an outright lie to say that a government panel making decisions as to whether a particular medication is "comparatively effective" is making life and death decisions for some patients. When the FDA doesn't let terminally ill patients try a drug with a low chance of success, it is arguably acting as a death panel. And don't forget that a public option was on the table for Obamacare until final passage. The bill kept changing. A public insurer would definitely have a a board determining which treatments would be covered or not, i.e. a "death panel".
You're being kind of bias and mincing words in order to prove your point.
I read the google manifesto and I could easily summarize as what you said CNN did (which I can't find btw).
I am not going to put it in quotes and say it came from the author's mouth, because that would be an "outright lie", but I am allowed to come to my own conclusions about things.
"death panels" is a better example of an "outright lie". Because no such thing existed. No one wanted it. No one asked for it. It was created purely for propaganda.
It's ridiculous to claim that medical advisory constitute a death panel.
The specific legislation both Betsy McCaughey and Sarah Palin pointed at to justify "death panels" said it "would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner." (Section 1233)
The "death panels" you're talking about have nothing to do with the legislation that it was libeling...which is probably why it was so effective to both uninformed people and educated people.
At the point when Gizmodo published the memo and later the New York Times, Damore was not a public figure. He became a public figure because of the media attention. As such those media networks would likely not be able to use the public figure defense in this case, but they can use the public figure defense in regard to Obama.
To make a similar parallel, political satire is legal but if you do the exact same to a private person it would be harassment. The difference between the two is that one target a human being with the intent of doing personal harm, and the other targets a political role with the intent of creating discussion.
>On the other end of things, I think the libel laws in the US are actually way too weak.
That's a good thing. Strong libel laws result in something even less desirable: a veritable free speech dystopia where they're used by the wealthy and powerful corporations alike to silence investigative journalism, for example.[0][1]
People blindly believing whatever they want to hear en massse from their favorite pundit or source is certainly one of the major challenges of our time, but it's not one that's best solved with stronger libel laws. Doing so would be tantamount to using nuclear weapons to solve poverty.
I share your general concern about preserving free speech. I'm fine with a standard that protects most lies. But I think Mr. Damore's case is one that should be over the legal line.
FWIW, there are free speech absolutists, like the late Justice Scalia, who nonetheless share my concern about weak libel laws.
How would you feel if the standard was lowered only for getting a court-mandated public apology, not monetary damages?
Sometimes headlines are changed without notice. I previously worked on the same floor as a niche online magazine. Every now and then someone powerful from within the niche covered by the magazine would ask for things to be changed or removed, and the magazine had to comply.
It's really not. By that logic he was also saying men were biologically unfit for tech jobs. His point was that the distribution of personality traits is different in men and women, which accounts for the skewed gender distribution in the tech industry.
Further, he was arguing that this could be at least partly mitigated by changing certain cultural and institutional aspects of the tech industry, to better leverage different personality types and actually improve the performance of Google.
So no, it wasn't part of his underlying thesis and I question how you could think so if you actually read it. Perhaps you're just repeating what the commentariat told you he said?
What is the difference between “women are biologically unsuited for tech jobs” and “the distribution of personality traits is different in men and women, which accounts for the skewed gender distribution in the tech industry”?
The difference between preference and ability is one indicate what a person want to do, and the second dictate what a person can do.
For example, people of red hair have generally higher sensitivity to ultraviolet light["Variants of the melanocyte-stimulating hormone receptor gene are associated with red hair and fair skin in humans". Nature Genetics. 1995]. As a result a person with red hair will easier get sun burn and could very likely have a distribution that lean slightly away from professions which exposes the body to a lot of ultraviolet light. This do not mean that red hair color make someone unsuited to do outdoor work. A increased sensitivity to ultraviolet light is not a factor in a persona ability to perform work outdoor, only how comfortable such work would be.
Seems to me that redheads are unsuited to outdoor work in more sunny climates without modern technology to help. Sunburn isn't merely uncomfortable, it can be debilitating and even deadly. So I don't think that's a very good example.
Back to the actual case at hand, I don't see why "personality traits" would automatically translate to "preference" rather than "ability." Even if it does, don't people do a better job when it's something they enjoy?
You are thinking of the extreme end when talking about debilitating and deadly sunburns, and is not within normal variance. Death by sunburn is a extreme rare event, generally caused by other contributing factors such as dehydration.
If we take the extreme end of everything, practically all in life is deadly. Salt is extremely deadly at high doses, but it is also suitable as food. Pure oxygen is deadly, but also suitable in medicine. Looking at the extreme part of variance is unhelpful to determine suitability when suitability is in the 99.99th percentile and unsuitability is outside it.
> don't people do a better job when it's something they enjoy?
If one assume that people pick jobs which they enjoy, then that issue is a bit moot. If 10% of the population like a particular activity, then it seems naturally that those 10% will do a good job. There is no logical argument that say that the 10% are not suited for the job just because 90% don't want the job and thus don't seek it. Preference of the 90% don't dictate the suitability of the remaining 10%.
I don't agree with the premises of the parent comment:
If a news publication lied about him then Damore does indeed have legal recourse. People, including public figures, sue news publications all the time, and some win.
Examples: One reason the Harvey Weinstein story didn't get published for so long, despite the fact that he's clearly a public figure and many journalists investigated it over the years, is that there wasn't sufficient basis for the story to win in court if Weisenstein sued. You'll also recall that Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel actually put Gawker out of business.
In journalism trade publications,[0] you can read that lawsuits are a big concern and considered a threat to the free press. I recently read that small news organizations can't publish investigations of wealthy people and organizations because, true or false, they cannot afford a legal defense. That is a threat to democracy.
So Damore could sue if there was defamation (or slander or libel; I'm not sure of the distinction); why didn't he? Every target of an investigation tries to attack the media now; it's standard operating procedure, and Damore does nothing to distinguish himself. Why should I believe Damore? (This part of the discussion needs facts to back up claims.)
Also, I'd be very careful about bringing down the news media when it takes down people we like; it's an essential institution that we need. If the rich and powerful can silence them, it would cripple democracy and liberty.
> I can't imagine a more malicious and intentional misrepresentation
It would be great to avoid hyperbole; it helps an intelligent discussion
An interesting possibility to me is keeping the current high standard if you want monetary damages, but lowering the standard for extracting a (prominent) public apology. I'm less concerned with putting people out of business as I am with making them suffer reputational harm in exchange for the reputational harm they inflict on others. That would also weaken their ability to harm more people in the future.
I don't see it as needed because I disagree with the premise that there's a problem in general, and in particular with Damore. I see restrictions on journalism as very dangerous, especially in this particular time when the President of the U.S. is calling for them and many in the GOP support them.
Beyond that, this whole discussion plays as part of the white supremacist narrative - do away with democracy and rights, including freedom of the press, because those things cause white supremacists to lose. But find reasonable-sounding arguments so that political oppression sounds like something to discuss. Which is what Damore tried to do with scientific citations and his posture as a victim - a white male with Harvard and Google on his resume.
For someone so concerned with slander, that's a big exaggeration and a personal attack. I didn't say anything about you personally; I hope you will withdraw what you said about me. You asked what I thought and I told you.
It's hard to believe you aren't familiar with the white supremacist narrative, including 'reasonably' discussing political oppression, and or that you are unaware that the discussion above fits it well.
You basically said that Damore was pushing a white supremacist narrative, which is ridiculous because he didn't even say anything about race and his views are left of mainstream conservatism if anything. You're not so subtly implying that anyone who agrees with him is also supporting white supremacy.
And what does him being white or a Harvard graduate have anything to with it? Do you seriously doubt that the dishonest reporting around what he said has ruined his chance at having a normal career in the tech industry? White Harvard graduates are not immune from the obstacles of life, are not incapable of being victims of wrongdoing.
Distrust of the news media and a desire for accountability aren't a "white supremacist" narrative. (And neither is skepticism of third-wave feminism, for that matter). It was only 8 years ago when the Obama administration tried to shut Fox News out from access to the White House and distrust of the media has been a thoughtful leftist talking point forever too (see Noam Chomsky).
You're doing what I've noticed a lot of dishonest partisans doing lately: throwing the phrase 'white supremacist' around when talking about your political opponents. It's really no different than what McCarthy did when he attacked anyone with left wing views as a communist, with an eye to getting them shunned from public life.
You continue to attack me personally. You've been on HN long enough to know that it's not acceptable here and you'll note that I haven't done the same. I only am discussing the content of this thread.
The white male supremacist narrative of their victimization, like the one in the parent, is what I was describing further up the thread.
I don't even know what to say. When you imply that I'm supporting a white supremacist narrative, I'm obviously going to defend myself and call out a fallacious yet unfortunately widespread line of reasoning.
You can talk about the reasoning without attacking me; it's not hard. I never said anything about you (other than you are attacking me); I have no idea what your intent or thinking is, what kind of person you are or what you support. Maybe you are the grand wizard[0] of the KKK of SV; maybe you are a civil rights organizer but are playing devil's advocate; maybe you are an unwitting 'useful idiot'[1] for the white male supremacists; maybe you are a PhD in philosophy and just like to debate; maybe you are 13 years old and are just trying on some ideas for size; maybe you are a troll; maybe you are in the office down the hall; and probably you are something I haven't thought of and with more complex motivations than these simple characterizations.
All I can comment on are the words on the page and that's all anyone should be commenting on. The words fit the narrative I described.
TFA doesn't make it clear, but clicking through to the ruling it seems that this is just on the preliminary anti-SLAPP motion. The trial judge still has a chance to get it right. (IANAL)
33 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 79.4 ms ] threadCNN and many other outlets had headlines and articles saying that James Damore claimed that "women are biologically unfit for tech work". I can't imagine a more malicious and intentional misrepresentation, rising to outright fabrication, of what Mr. Damore wrote. Yet because Mr. Damore was a public figure (at least with regards to what he wrote), he would find it near impossible to succeed in suing the media corporations and others that smeared him with vicious lies, even though those lies are a major part of how he became a public figure in the first place.
As for the case the EFF is writing about, I wish they would have explained the actual defamation and false light allegations. I suspect that with that information, the EFF's argument wouldn't seem as obviously correct as they portray it. Or perhaps not, but the glaring omission makes you wonder.
EDIT: I'd like to add that monetary damages isn't necessarily the most important remedy for libel. If CNN had to have as their top story for a whole day an apology to Mr. Damore and admission that they lied, I think that could be an adequate remedy.
I would challenge that Damore's memo in no way states anything close to "women are biologically unfit for tech work", something that was widely claimed. And instead said that reducing populations to averages to make such spurious claims is damaging, and that there maybe some biological root that explains part of the gap in engagement in tech between men and women that cause fewer women to want to join. So in this case, yes what was published against Damore, by media companies, was an "outright lie" and should be legally punished.
I also tried searching for your widely claimed quote
> No results found for "women are biologically unfit for tech work".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel#Palin.27s_initial_...
Didn't try hard enough. "Aren't biologically fit" is the same as "biologically unfit" and I am pretty certain I remember the exact latter phrase appearing on the CNN home page, which is transient and wouldn't show up on search results anyway.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161
"Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs"
I think your point is stronger for "death panels". But I don't think it's an outright lie to say that a government panel making decisions as to whether a particular medication is "comparatively effective" is making life and death decisions for some patients. When the FDA doesn't let terminally ill patients try a drug with a low chance of success, it is arguably acting as a death panel. And don't forget that a public option was on the table for Obamacare until final passage. The bill kept changing. A public insurer would definitely have a a board determining which treatments would be covered or not, i.e. a "death panel".
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203513204576047...
You're being kind of bias and mincing words in order to prove your point.
I read the google manifesto and I could easily summarize as what you said CNN did (which I can't find btw).
I am not going to put it in quotes and say it came from the author's mouth, because that would be an "outright lie", but I am allowed to come to my own conclusions about things.
"death panels" is a better example of an "outright lie". Because no such thing existed. No one wanted it. No one asked for it. It was created purely for propaganda.
It's ridiculous to claim that medical advisory constitute a death panel.
The "death panels" you're talking about have nothing to do with the legislation that it was libeling...which is probably why it was so effective to both uninformed people and educated people.
At the point when Gizmodo published the memo and later the New York Times, Damore was not a public figure. He became a public figure because of the media attention. As such those media networks would likely not be able to use the public figure defense in this case, but they can use the public figure defense in regard to Obama.
To make a similar parallel, political satire is legal but if you do the exact same to a private person it would be harassment. The difference between the two is that one target a human being with the intent of doing personal harm, and the other targets a political role with the intent of creating discussion.
That's a good thing. Strong libel laws result in something even less desirable: a veritable free speech dystopia where they're used by the wealthy and powerful corporations alike to silence investigative journalism, for example.[0][1]
People blindly believing whatever they want to hear en massse from their favorite pundit or source is certainly one of the major challenges of our time, but it's not one that's best solved with stronger libel laws. Doing so would be tantamount to using nuclear weapons to solve poverty.
[0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/12/angola-defamation-laws-s...
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/o...
FWIW, there are free speech absolutists, like the late Justice Scalia, who nonetheless share my concern about weak libel laws.
How would you feel if the standard was lowered only for getting a court-mandated public apology, not monetary damages?
Under these strengthened libel laws, would you be liable for this misquote?
"Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs"
I remember the headlines on CNN.com using the phrase "biologically unfit", which is the exact same thing as "not biologically fit" anyway.
So it's not a complete summary of his paper, but it's also not an inaccurate one.
Further, he was arguing that this could be at least partly mitigated by changing certain cultural and institutional aspects of the tech industry, to better leverage different personality types and actually improve the performance of Google.
So no, it wasn't part of his underlying thesis and I question how you could think so if you actually read it. Perhaps you're just repeating what the commentariat told you he said?
For example, people of red hair have generally higher sensitivity to ultraviolet light["Variants of the melanocyte-stimulating hormone receptor gene are associated with red hair and fair skin in humans". Nature Genetics. 1995]. As a result a person with red hair will easier get sun burn and could very likely have a distribution that lean slightly away from professions which exposes the body to a lot of ultraviolet light. This do not mean that red hair color make someone unsuited to do outdoor work. A increased sensitivity to ultraviolet light is not a factor in a persona ability to perform work outdoor, only how comfortable such work would be.
Back to the actual case at hand, I don't see why "personality traits" would automatically translate to "preference" rather than "ability." Even if it does, don't people do a better job when it's something they enjoy?
If we take the extreme end of everything, practically all in life is deadly. Salt is extremely deadly at high doses, but it is also suitable as food. Pure oxygen is deadly, but also suitable in medicine. Looking at the extreme part of variance is unhelpful to determine suitability when suitability is in the 99.99th percentile and unsuitability is outside it.
> don't people do a better job when it's something they enjoy?
If one assume that people pick jobs which they enjoy, then that issue is a bit moot. If 10% of the population like a particular activity, then it seems naturally that those 10% will do a good job. There is no logical argument that say that the 10% are not suited for the job just because 90% don't want the job and thus don't seek it. Preference of the 90% don't dictate the suitability of the remaining 10%.
No, I did read his memo when it was first released publicly.
If I were him I'd be embarrassed to have published such a paper (rather than deluding himself into having been "fired for truth", as he put it).
A summary of the memo: intellectually weak arguments blaming anti-women bias on female biology, with dull side rants about leftists and communism.
If a news publication lied about him then Damore does indeed have legal recourse. People, including public figures, sue news publications all the time, and some win.
Examples: One reason the Harvey Weinstein story didn't get published for so long, despite the fact that he's clearly a public figure and many journalists investigated it over the years, is that there wasn't sufficient basis for the story to win in court if Weisenstein sued. You'll also recall that Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel actually put Gawker out of business.
In journalism trade publications,[0] you can read that lawsuits are a big concern and considered a threat to the free press. I recently read that small news organizations can't publish investigations of wealthy people and organizations because, true or false, they cannot afford a legal defense. That is a threat to democracy.
So Damore could sue if there was defamation (or slander or libel; I'm not sure of the distinction); why didn't he? Every target of an investigation tries to attack the media now; it's standard operating procedure, and Damore does nothing to distinguish himself. Why should I believe Damore? (This part of the discussion needs facts to back up claims.)
Also, I'd be very careful about bringing down the news media when it takes down people we like; it's an essential institution that we need. If the rich and powerful can silence them, it would cripple democracy and liberty.
> I can't imagine a more malicious and intentional misrepresentation
It would be great to avoid hyperbole; it helps an intelligent discussion
What would you think about that?
Beyond that, this whole discussion plays as part of the white supremacist narrative - do away with democracy and rights, including freedom of the press, because those things cause white supremacists to lose. But find reasonable-sounding arguments so that political oppression sounds like something to discuss. Which is what Damore tried to do with scientific citations and his posture as a victim - a white male with Harvard and Google on his resume.
It's hard to believe you aren't familiar with the white supremacist narrative, including 'reasonably' discussing political oppression, and or that you are unaware that the discussion above fits it well.
And what does him being white or a Harvard graduate have anything to with it? Do you seriously doubt that the dishonest reporting around what he said has ruined his chance at having a normal career in the tech industry? White Harvard graduates are not immune from the obstacles of life, are not incapable of being victims of wrongdoing.
Distrust of the news media and a desire for accountability aren't a "white supremacist" narrative. (And neither is skepticism of third-wave feminism, for that matter). It was only 8 years ago when the Obama administration tried to shut Fox News out from access to the White House and distrust of the media has been a thoughtful leftist talking point forever too (see Noam Chomsky).
You're doing what I've noticed a lot of dishonest partisans doing lately: throwing the phrase 'white supremacist' around when talking about your political opponents. It's really no different than what McCarthy did when he attacked anyone with left wing views as a communist, with an eye to getting them shunned from public life.
The white male supremacist narrative of their victimization, like the one in the parent, is what I was describing further up the thread.
All I can comment on are the words on the page and that's all anyone should be commenting on. The words fit the narrative I described.
[0] Cool title; don't you think? Another attempt to normalize evil: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/james-damore-says-the-qui...
[1] not a pejorative, but a term of art