Thread by @jbenton

This is just so disappointing: @lessig is suing The New York Times for the new legal category of "clickbait defamation."

1/x

https://twitter.com/lessig/status/1216746210226135041

First, big picture: If you're a fan of a free press and vigorous public discourse, suing news organizations should require a pretty high standard, no?

*Especially* when you are a public figure, as Lessig (a former presidential candidate!) certainly is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_…

(Not to mention suing the reporter, her editor, and executive editor Dean Baquet as *individuals*, not just the @nytimes as an institution. Baquet can fend for himself, but now two journalists face potential legal costs to defend themselves from this thin suit.)

Second, what a weak idea to call this "clickbait defamation."

His complaint is about a news story's headline and its opening paragraph.

*Stories have had headlines and ledes forever.* To call it clickbait is simply to attempt to demean it by association with the Internet.

Third, Lessig says he is defamed by the story's headline, which was (and is): "A Harvard Professor Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret."

nytimes.com/2019/09/14/bus…

Lessig says that is defamatory because, in a Medium essay that prompted the article, he says that "it was a mistake to take this money, even if anonymous" and that universities should not accept money from Epstein types at all.

medium.com/@lessig/on-joi…

But for heaven's sake, read the headline! "IF You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret."

IF!

Which is *exactly* what Lessig writes in his Medium post!

(For clarity: Lessig's post describes Epstein's money and similar money as "Type 3" money.)

Here's Lessig: "IF you are going to take type 3 money, then you should only take it anonymously."

THAT IS THE TIMES HEADLINE!!!!

Also from Lessig's piece:

"I believe that if [colleges] 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."

AGAIN THAT IS THE HEADLINE

After Lessig's original essay prompted huge blowback, he amended it to explain that...the @nytimes headline is exactly accurate?

That Lessig says that he, personally, would not have taken the money does NOT mean that it is defamatory to accurately summarize *another* position of his: namely, that "If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret."

(And note the story gets into all this nuance! 4th graf: "He argued that in an ideal world, no institution should take money from people like Mr. Epstein, but that in reality, much of the money that props up universities and other elite institutions comes from troubling sources")

Lessig's other complaint is the @nytimes' story's lede, which is:

"It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying."

Lessig claims that this is defamatory because he says that he personally wouldn't have taken the money and that, while he didn't think so at the time, he later realized doing so was a "mistake."

But that doesn't mean Lessig hasn't been defending the act, which he has!

Lessig writes that the problem with Joi Ito soliciting money from Epstein was NOT the act of solicitation itself, but the fact that ****it would likely be eventually discovered**** — and that that would cause people pain.

He thought it was okay for Ito to take the money so long as it was anonymous/secret.

But his big realization after the fact was that the risk of discovery was too high — "at some point, it was destined to be discovered" — and "Joi should have recognized that risk."

He SPECIFICALLY WRITES that Ito's "mistake" was not the solicitation but his faith that he could get away with it without ever being exposed. And he repeatedly states Ito is getting screwed over by facing public and institutional opprobrium.

It's comical to pretend that Lessig wasn't defending his bud for soliciting the money.

("Joi is gone. Not dead. Not destroyed. I can’t imagine the creative greatness that the next life of this sweet soul will produce. It will be greatness beyond measure, no doubt, again.")

Even when he imagines he had infinite power, Lessig *still* says he wouldn't ban taking Epstein-type money — only doing so out in the open! Secret blood money? Still cool, just part of running a university.

I think that easily adds up to "defend[ing]" the actions of his friend Joi in "soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein."

But even if you think it doesn't, there's a LOOOOONG road between "maybe a little strong?" and suing a reporter for defamation.

I hope the court throws this out quickly, as it should. /end

I forgot to add: Lessig basically gives up the game at the end of the Times Q&A itself

https://twitter.com/skidder/status/1216774721225863168

This is not the most important thing, but I do find it amusing that Lessig's lawsuit renamed "Dean Baquet" as "Daniel Paquet"

Then again, the entire Internet is built on Paquet switching :rimshot:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_sw…

Want a reminder of what Lessig’s friend Ito was doing here?

Not just shepherding Epstein’s $859 to MIT — he was at the same time seeking $5-15 MILLION from Epstein for his own private investment fund

https://twitter.com/bgrueskin/status/1216808420956762112

Lessig says "the media business model of selling ads based on the traffic to a website incentivized sensationalism."

FYI, ads in newspapers, magazines, TV broadcasts, and radio broadcasts have always been sold based on audience size.

thedailybeast.com/harvard-law-pr…

Also, the @nytimes makes its money from reader subscriptions, print and digital. The revenue generated by marginal ad impressions from this alleged "clickbait" is indistinguishable from zero.