Slashdot Mirror


'Coal King' Is Suing John Oliver, Time Warner, and HBO (washingtonpost.com)

Reader Daetrin writes: Robert E. Murray, CEO of one of the largest coal mining companies in the US, is suing John Oliver, HBO, and Time Warner for defamation (alternative source) over a comedic report on the status of the coal industry in John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight". The report began with the decline of the coal mining industry, Trump's promises to revive it, and the plight of the workers involved, but was also highly critical of the business practices and safety record of Murray Energy Corporation and Robert Murray's leadership of the company. When the company was contacted about the piece before airing they responded with a cease and desist letter and threatened to sue. John Oliver continued with the segment anyway, saying "I didn't really plan for so much of this piece to be about you, but you kinda forced my hand on that one."

5 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Truth by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the US, for it to be defamation, it has to be untrue.

    That means a couple of things:

    1. He'd have to prove in court that something said wasn't true (and then that it somehow cost him money).
    2. Oliver ('s attorneys) would be able to subpoena all the guy's business records pertaining to the claims, which would make them public record. If they are public record, they can be used in his show (or anyone else's).

    We may have to rename the Streisand Effect after this is all over.

  2. Re:I hate coal by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unlike in Britain, the US has extremely strong free speech protections, especially if you can afford a decent lawyer (which Oliver/HBO/TW can). You basically can't win a defamation case in the US, therefore Robert E. Murray doesn't have a legitimate case.

    For it to be defamation he would also have to prove that Oliver used false and damaging information. Which means he would have to state on record safety records, business practices, etc. And the burden of proof is on him, not on Oliver. And Murray is just drawing attention to Oliver and his criticism anyway. I hadn't even heard about this segment before this, but honestly I pretty much assume that, since coal companies have a long history of horrible working conditions and shitty and unfair business practices that they haven't changed too much in the previous years and, given the current administration, are probably looking at how to walk back what few changes they have made.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  3. Re:This guy sues anyone who critizes him by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yup. He mentioned the cease and desist letter. (Sent to Last Week Tonight before they even aired the segment!) He mentioned the other people (news media, etc) sued by Murray for mentioning him in a less-than-completely-flattering-way (despite what any facts are). Then, he said, "Let's take this cease and desist letter and do neither of those."

    Of course, Murray doesn't really want this to go to court. Courts require evidence, which doesn't seem to be in his favor. He wants this lawsuit to make John Oliver and HBO quake in their boots so that they'll prostrate themselves before the Coal King. The problem with this is that it's not going to happen. HBO might not make as much as the entire coal industry (around $4.6 billion annually versus about $46 billion), but they're large enough that they're not going to get scared by someone trying a SLAPP tactic. Once Murray sees this, he'll probably attempt to settle this out of court with undisclosed terms. The only question is: Will HBO allow this? Or will they "make an example" of Murray by pushing the case forward?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  4. Re:I hate coal by danaris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...revamp them to an economy where the Coal Mine isn't the center of the community but just one of many good employers.

    Based on the information in the John Oliver segment (which matches with what I vaguely knew about the situation beforehand), most actual coal mining going on today doesn't even fit with being "one of many good employers" for an Appalachian community.

    The old model was basically: you have a coal mine. You send people with hand or hand-held power tools down into that mine to dig out the coal. If that particular mine runs out (which it will after many decades of use), the odds are very good you can open a new one within a short enough distance that the people from the same town can still work it. This model took hundreds to thousands of men to extract a modest stream of coal from the mine for a long period of time.

    The new model, as I understand it, is: you have a mountain with coal in it. You use explosives and enormous machines to cut the top off the mountain layer by layer and sift the coal out of the debris. This model takes a few men (maybe a few dozen) to extract a huge amount of coal out of the mountain in a short time, then they move on to another mountain.

    Not only does the new model employ an order of magnitude fewer people, it doesn't provide a job that stays in one place for decades. That makes it a poor fit for a "good employer" for a community.

    (That is, of course, leaving aside entirely what the new model does to the environment, which is godawful, but not relevant to its place as a community employer.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  5. Re: I hate coal by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not so much "leave me alone" as it is "stop contradicting me, news media!" For example, there was a big mine accident of his. Even before the reports came in, with miners still trapped underground, Bob Murray proclaimed that this wasn't due to bad mining practices by his company but by an earthquake. Later, the official analysis found no evidence of an earthquake and cited bad practices by his company. Yet, he still insists it was an earthquake and is ready to sue anyone who says otherwise because, apparently, disagreeing with him (and agreeing with the official analysis of the incident) is "defamation of character."

    You can't constantly go around spouting complete falsehoods and then complain when people use facts to prove you wrong. At least, you can't do this in front of a judge (yet).

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.