Newsweek could get sued for its dubious Bitcoin scoop | VOX Report

[pawel7777]

What they posted was newsworthy.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts

That's arbitrary. If he is Satoshi, then yes it's newsworthy. But if such assumption was based only on questionable evidence (name-match, the fact he didn't trust government too much etc) then the court may decide it was not newsworthy and that they violated his privacy.



Edit:

Dude, read all of what you said in reverse.    

What you essentially said is that everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (and perhaps after all appeals have expired as well).  
...

That's not at all what I said. Dude.

[Armis]

Dude, read all of what you said in reverse.   

What you essentially said is that everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (and perhaps after all appeals have expired as well). 
...

That's not at all what I said. Dude.

If I wanted to quote you I would have done so, but I choose to paraphrase.  All actions, be they inside of or outside of court, prior to a finding of guilt in court are simply accusations, including any lodged by the press or anyone in this forum.

The press has a responsibility as a professional entity to act in a professional manner, it does not appear that they have acted in any actionable way.   If anyone thought the media was abusing that privileged certainly a demand for injunctive relief would have been sought -- was there any such injunction or restraining order granted or even filed against the media?

At this point this is all old no-one-really-cares-anymore news.

[HELP.org]

What they posted was newsworthy.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts

That's arbitrary. If he is Satoshi, then yes it's newsworthy. But if such assumption was based only on questionable evidence (name-match, the fact he didn't trust government too much etc) then the court may decide it was not newsworthy and that they violated his privacy.

it is not "arbitrary" but it is open to some interpretation.  They could have a judge decide but they could have a jury decide rather than the courts.  In any case due to the number of news stories and discussions I just think it is a play by the lawyers to get some cash and the claim will go nowhere.

[Lauda]

Even if this is true or not,they do get deserved to be sued for it.
I mean after all, since this was proven not to be true, why did they refuse to take it down and/or apologize publicly?

[pawel7777]

Even if this is true or not,they do get deserved to be sued for it.
I mean after all, since this was proven not to be true, why did they refuse to take it down and/or apologize publicly?

Agree, I'd love to see them paying compensation to Dorian. But as far as I know, Newsweek never admitted that they were wrong. If they did publically apologize, it would not only damage their reputation, but would make suing them much easier.

...
 In any case due to the number of news stories and discussions I just think it is a play by the lawyers to get some cash and the claim will go nowhere.

It's pretty obvious. If they'll manage to get crowdfunded, they will get their money either way, win or lose.


EDIT:

So far they raised ~1.9 BTC (and already cashed out 0.635 ?):

https://blockchain.info/address/1LK3uHXhXPzR6M7AfAMQk4vBgTtQLw2kGC

[Armis]

Even if this is true or not,they do get deserved to be sued for it.
I mean after all, since this was proven not to be true, why did they refuse to take it down and/or apologize publicly?

hahahaha, how was it "proven not to be true"   because he said: "no, that's not me" ? hahahahahaa

[scarsbergholden]

What they posted was newsworthy.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts

That's arbitrary. If he is Satoshi, then yes it's newsworthy. But if such assumption was based only on questionable evidence (name-match, the fact he didn't trust government too much etc) then the court may decide it was not newsworthy and that they violated his privacy.

it is not "arbitrary" but it is open to some interpretation.  They could have a judge decide but they could have a jury decide rather than the courts.  In any case due to the number of news stories and discussions I just think it is a play by the lawyers to get some cash and the claim will go nowhere.

Does newsweek not have it's right to freedom of speech and the freedom of the press? The idea behind both of these rights is that they allow for people to say and publish controversial ideas without the thread of criminal or civil prosecution.

The only thing that newsweek could potentially be liable for is slander however they did not publish anything false that is negative to his reputation

[cbeast]

He should sue and let them defend their right to be bad journalists.

[Argwai96]

He should sue and let them defend their right to be bad journalists.

This is actually a right of Newsweek. If they are bad journalists then people will not buy their magazine nor will they read their news on their website. Not checking facts and reporting false information they believe to be true is not illegal and if they were to lose such a case it would have chilling effects on the first amendment.

[cbeast]

He should sue and let them defend their right to be bad journalists.

This is actually a right of Newsweek. If they are bad journalists then people will not buy their magazine nor will they read their news on their website. Not checking facts and reporting false information they believe to be true is not illegal and if they were to lose such a case it would have chilling effects on the first amendment.

You mean that piece of paper they used to call the Bill of Rights? That is so 20th century.