SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A list of low-quality science journals has been taken down without an apparent explanation:
A popular blog that lists "potential, possible, or probable predatory" publishers and journals has disappeared, but it is not clear why. The blog—started in 2010 by librarian Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado in Denver (CU Denver)—now states: "This service is no longer is available." Beall declined to comment. But a CU Denver spokesperson told ScienceInsider that Beall made a "personal decision" to take down his list of low-quality journals that charge authors a fee to publish, often with little or no review or editing. The spokesperson says the blog was not hacked, nor was it taken down as a result of legal threats, and Beall will remain on the school's faculty. The spokesperson could not confirm whether the blog's removal is permanent.
[...] Some are circulating a cached version of Beall's list on Twitter. Others speculated on social media that the shutdown may have something to do with the transfer of its lists to the company Cabell's International in Beaumont, Texas. But the firm has publicly said it is in "no way involved" with the blog's closure. Nevertheless, Cabell's noted that it has been developing its own blacklist, working with Beall as a consultant, since 2015, and plans to launch it later this year.
An executive at Cabell's later said that Beall shut down the blog due to "threats and politics". Here's some more analysis of the predatory publisher problem.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday January 23 2017, @05:30AM
I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but Trump basically CAN'T "open up our libel laws." Libel standards were set more than half a century ago in New York Times v. Sullian [wikipedia.org]. The standard for public figures** is "actual malice," which means that an organization not only published something negative and false, but ALSO published something they knew -- for certain -- was false, or that the publishers demonstrated a "reckless disregard" for its truth or falsity. (For the latter, it would mean proof that an organization cared more about making a "hit piece" than the truth of what they were publishing.) Oh, and obvious satire or parody don't count.
That ruling -- unanimous, by the way -- has been upheld quite a few times by SCOTUS, generally with significant support from justices from both "sides" of the apparent liberal/conservative divide. I don't think there's anything to indicate that it would fare worse with the current SCOTUS court.
And besides, what Trump says literally IS "actual malice." It is already actionable legally if someone were to "write purposely negative and horrible and false articles," if the "purposely" applies to the falsity.
The only way Trump could change libel standards is by appointing SCOTUS justices or by Constitutional amendment. And I highly doubt he's going to make this a high priority, because when someone later pointed out to Trump that he'd likely be sued more often for his false or reckless statements, he apparently said [nypost.com], "You know, I hadn't thought of that."
[**By the way, this is the standard for public figures. "Normal" people whose business is generally not considered "public" can still sue for negligence in publishing false information, without necessarily requiring the "actual malice" standard. This hasn't been litigated a lot in the appellate courts to my knowledge in the social media era, though. Can someone still claim to NOT be a "public figure" if one posts and tweets personal information to large swaths of the internet 20 times/day?]
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Monday January 23 2017, @05:41AM
The New York Times agrees with you:
If Mr. Trump were to seek to change the libel laws, he would have to get the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling in Times v. Sullivan and subsequent cases built on it, or at least chip away at either the definition of “actual malice” or the characterization of a public official or public figure, said Sandra S. Baron, a senior fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project and former executive director of the Media Law Resource Center.
-- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/business/media/can-libel-laws-be-changed-under-trump.html [nytimes.com]
Well, they would, wouldn't they?
(Score: 2) by migz on Monday January 23 2017, @07:48PM
Nonesense. All that the government needs to change libel law, is to pass a new one.
BTW what's the Trump equivalent of Godwining?
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:28PM
Nonesense. All that the government needs to change libel law, is to pass a new one.
Which will then be summarily overturned by the courts on the precedent cited above. Also, by your logic that we should treat the branches of government separately (despite the fact that the Judiciary would "win" in this case), Trump still can't do anything directly, since he leads the Executive Branch, not the Legislative.
Oh, and even if Trump could pursue legislation indirectly, there are NO federal libel laws, per se. Libel is handled at the state level. So unless Trump has control over state legislatures, I'm still not sure what he's going to do here.
Again -- if Trump wants to do this at the federal level, his only two realistic options are appoint justices to SCOTUS who will overturn precedent or pass a Constitutional amendment. (And neither of these is particularly realistic.)
(Score: 2) by migz on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:59AM
The GP implied, and you have claimed that the precedent cannot be changed, that is not the case.
The judicial branch does not write law, they interpret the law. Since there are no federal libel laws, they have built up a body of law based on state and traditional law, this does not preclude the law being changed (not by the judiciary).
On what basis do you believe that the Federal government does not have standing to pass libel laws?
Further though your presupposition that such laws would prima faci be struck by the supreme court, lacks substantiation.
And in conclusion you concede that a constitutional amendment (a law passed by the Legislative branch) would "trump" the precedent, and change libel law.
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:31PM
I was with you until there. I mean I agree in principle, but that's where suspension of disbelieve collapsed. At least in the last decade (and I'm sure further back) the government has been making changes that should require a Constitutional amendment far to frequently. They'll pass a law in Congress, they'll write an Executive order, they'll just ignore the rules and deny the right to sue. There are several methods.
Sure, we are not as bad as various other corrupt nations, but it's still way overdue for someone's noon time beverage of choice to wind up in the harbor.