I'm trying to read this headline: "Yelp Ducks Court Order to Remove Defamatory Posts."
So many words that could be either nouns or verbs: yelp, ducks, court, order, posts.
The only words that aren't a noun/verb are to, remove, and defamatory. (Remove can be a noun, but not with to in front of it.)
That headline had me picturing a type of annoying duck that was wooing... order???
As we've discussed before, Language Log calls this problem with compressed words in headlines a "crash blossom" (because there was once a headline, "Violinist Linked to JAL Crash Blossoms").
Anyway, the story, from Courthouse News Serivce, is about a duck... I mean, a Bird — Ava Bird — who had a default judgment entered against her over a 1-star review posted on the website Yelp. The plaintiff — another great name — Dawn Hassell — took the judgment to Yelp, but Yelp wasn't a party to the lawsuit, and the California Supreme Court said the judgment couldn't be enforced against Yelp:
But writing for the 4-3 state high court on Monday, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said the lower courts read the [federal] Communications Decency Act too narrowly in rejecting Yelp’s claim of immunity.Yelp's statement:
“Had plaintiffs’ claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light been alleged directly against Yelp, these theories would be readily understood as treating Yelp as the ‘publisher or speaker’ of the challenged reviews,” Cantil-Sakauye wrote in the 33-page opinion. “In this case, however, Yelp is inherently being treated as the publisher of the challenged reviews, and it has not engaged in conduct that would take it outside section 230’s purview in connection with the removal order.”
“Of course, Yelp has no interest in publishing defamation, which is not helpful to consumers, and our terms of service prohibit the posting of defamatory content. But defamation is more than just a label, and so Yelp studies court orders to ensure they are valid and actually make a showing that defamation has occurred, before Yelp removes reviewer content.”I like Yelp's position and, of course, I love the Communications Decency Act and don't want to see it eroded by judges. Without it, I couldn't have a comments section on this blog.
Posts
30 comments:
calls this problem with compressed words in headlines a "crash blossom"
didn't have this problem back when editors knew english
Stix Nix Hicks Pix can only be read one way
I’m not going to read all 103 pages, but how is this 4-3?
Ooh oooh oooh! Mrs Kotter
Remove can also be a noun.
A degree of remoteness or separation.
‘at this remove, the whole incident seems insane’
but NOT with a 'TO' in front of it!
PAY ATTENTION!
Here's a headline for you!
Topless woman takes front-end loader for joyride, crashes: cops
Strangely enough, NOT a Florida woman! Nope, this happened in Montana. I'm guessing this one involved alcohol/drugs or possibly a whole new take on the "walk of shame":
'I woke up next to this guy, my shirt is gone, I need to get home... I know, I'll steal this front-end loader and drive it home!'
That is super cool mrs language person
busted.
CA Supreme Court.... former Chief Justice was Rose Bird. Coincidence?
“flight to remove successful”. Potential crash blossom.
RE: "to remove"
Infinitives can also be nouns, but you usually see them somewhere like "I want to remove the wallpaper from the bathroom" or "To live is to fly" (like the old Cowboy Junkies song).
"Yelp ducks court order"
Yes - those Yelp ducks have always been very disciplined!
:I’m not going to read all 103 pages, but how is this 4-3?"
From the article in The San Francisco Chronicle: "'The internet has the potential not only to enlighten but to spread lies, amplifying defamatory communications to an extent unmatched in our history,' said Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar in a dissent arguing that companies like Yelp could, in some circumstances, be required to remove others’ postings.... But dissenting justices said Yelp could be held complicit in Bird’s refusal to remove her posting."
As indicated in the post, I think the "to" before "remove" takes it out of the category of "crash blossom" problems. I don't see it as a source of confusion because of its potential to be seen as a different part of speech than the one intended.
The glaring word that wants to be a different part of speech is "ducks." "Ducks," as a noun, is such a vivid image. That was true also of "blossoms." They seem to be great verbs because they seem so much more concrete and interesting that "avoids" (for "ducks") and "grows" or "develops" (for "blossoms"). But that's also what makes them "want" to be seen as a noun.
clyde; i read about the lady stealing 'a tractor', and then they didn't mention she was topless 'til paragraph 4. They mentioned that their 'tractor' was an end loader in paragraph 3. Did they use the cool headline?
NO! editing is a (nearly) lost art. Thank GOD that your paper saw it and ran with the topless/front end connection.
since she was (obviously!) wasted; they could have gone for
(allegedly) loaded topless women steals front end loader
Headline writers used to be constrained by limited column space, so coming up with something coherent on the fly was a real art.
But what's the problem now?
Crash Blossom is a great name for a band.
“Got woken up to our TOPLESS upstairs neighbor driving an excavator into the building!”
OK, OK, was it a front end loader or an excavator? And (if it was a front end loader) what type of front end loader, a wheel loader, backhoe loader, or a dozer loader? This is crucial information.
I love the Communications Decency Act and don't want to see it eroded by judges. Without it, I couldn't have a comments section on this blog.
Did you guys see this! Althouse thinks that we are indecent. Where can we Yelp about this defamation!!!!. [to clarify for Inga and Chuck ----> I'm joking]
Those 'crash blossom' headlines are really amusing.
Duck reminds me of that paper cartoon where the characters are yelling at Donald Duck. Donald Duck!!!! He waves and they keep yelling Donald Duck and WHAMMO he gets hit by a baseball. Duck you stupid Donald. It's a punctuation joke.
From the article: "Yelp, however, was not a party to Hassell’s lawsuit. The company said it only became aware of the lawsuit when it received a copy of the judgment and as a result should not have to comply with the takedown order."
Isn't this basic due process -- if you are not a party to the suit you are not bound by the judgment? How could 3 justices vote to affirm?
In case anybody was wondering, the Yelp review read:
"Did not like the fact that they charged me their client to make COPIES, send out FAXES, POSTAGE, AND FOR MAKING PHONE CALLS about my case!!! Isn't that your job. That's just ridiculous!!! They Deducted all those expenses out of my settlement."
So this was ruled as defamatory.
I can't tell if the dog in the video is a Siberian Husky or an Alaskan Malamute...they look virtually identical, though Malamutes are bigger and typically have brown eyes, while Huskies can have blue eyes. We had a Malamute in our family named Buck. He was a wonderful dog: very strong and powerful, but also very smart, tender, playful and affectionate, and always an abject beggar of our food. Once, we returned home after being out for a while to find he had tried to open a can of his dog food by taking the can in his mouth and simply biting down on it. He didn't manage to open the can, but it was squeezed to an extent flatter than it had been...an astonishing illustration of his jaw strength! Imagine taking a heavy hammer and trying to pound a full, unopened can of dog food flat. I doubt one could get it to a point any flatter using a heavy hammer than Buck managed with just his bite strength.
@Nonapod - thank you for looking that up and saving me the trouble. It isn't defamatory of course (its outrageous but completely typical of lawyers, but that's a different thing).
What's especially annoying to me is: a) There was a default judgment (defendant didn't show up). As I understand it, the court/judge rules in favor of the part who did show up regardless of the merits.
And then b) all higher courts have to assume the defamation actually occurred and write about it as if it did, e.g., here from the linked article from a dissenting opinion: "Liu blasted the majority for offering Hassell “sympathy” while “more than four years after the trial court issued its order Bird’s defamatory reviews remain posted on Yelp.”"
The facts of the case are these: Bird is right to be outraged about getting clipped for highly inflated charges for phone calls (minimum 15 minutes even if it was just leaving a message on an answering machine), photocopies (probably around $1 each), and postage. (Not to mention high hourly rates for legal assistants and the lawyers themselves.) But there's nothing to be done about it: That's just the way it is and the lawyers control the legislatures (lawyers are most of the legislators). Lawyers are dicks. So suck it up.These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed.
"So this was ruled as defamatory."
It was a default judgment, so the substantive question was never answered.
That's how I remember billable hours: You can't bill in a smaller increments than 15 minutes. So if you make 12 5-minute phone calls in an hour to different clients, you have 3 billable hours. What a pain to record all that, though.
My husky doesn't howl. I think I got a defective one.
There already is a band called Crash Blossom:
https://www.facebook.com/crashblossommusic/
Also a band called the Crash Blossoms:
https://www.facebook.com/TheCrashBlossoms/
fortunately, the local tv news* has a pic; it's John Deere Wheeled end loader
this is where you Want TV news!
"Ann Althouse said...
"That's how I remember billable hours: You can't bill in a smaller increments than 15 minutes."
You haven't been in practice for a while. The industry standard is now 6-minute increments (one-tenth of an hour).
"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
Assuming this Wikipedia article is correct, there are some more facts to consider.
"Bird published her first review of Hassell's firm on Yelp.com in January 2013, under the name "Birdzeye B. Los Angeles, CA." She rated her experience with Hassell as one out of five stars, claiming that Hassell's firm neglected to contact her insurance company or maintain communication with Bird herself—even though Hassell notified Bird via email about at least two correspondences with Allstate Insurance Company. Upon seeing these reviews, Hassell reached out to Bird, requesting that she remove the "factual inaccuracies and defamatory remarks" from the website. Bird refused."
Notwithstanding that the court did not consider the substantive issue (Bird did not show up in court, which in my mind makes sense in light of Hassell's contention), Bird sounds to me like a chick with a bird-brain. Is that defamatory?
The trial court entered a judgment for more than $500,000 against Bird at the default hearing. Apparently the actual defamatory statement was that Hassell, the attorney, never contacted the insurance company when she, in fact, had done so twice.
Could it be that copy editors leave these things in (or even write them themselves!) because they think it’s funny?
Wordsmiths tend to like play on words.
Post a Comment