Am I getting this right?
You're still free to drop a customer for whatever reason. I just want the press to be held accountable for the torts they're committing and the economic harm they are causing.
> press using their influence to pressure those companies into dropping customers
So what does that even look like? Odds are it looks like this:
"Hey, I'm working on a story about 8chan and heard you guys host them. Do you have anything to say about that?"
I guess what you're saying is that the press should just not be allowed to report on this stuff.
>torts they're committing
such as? IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims.
Specific example: https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/115839279568757...
BitMitigate has a case for tortious interference over this tweet, IMO. Alex knew of contracts between BitMitigate and 8chan (or Voxility), used his influence to induce Voxility to make it impossible for BitMitigate to fulfill their 8chan contract (or for the breach of their voxility contract), Alex was not privileged to interfere, and there were economic damages suffered. That's all the elements necessary for a tortious interference with contract claim.
>IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims.
Indeed it does. Generally, merely sharing truthful information does not provide a basis for tortious interference. The problem I have isn't that these sorts of statements are false, but that they come attached with a threat of an active negative PR campaign. The format of twitter makes this particularly salient, since it makes it easy to get viral traction and hard to communicate extensive information. And the tweet I linked earlier didn't tell Voxility anything it didn't already know, it simply publicized things and used the author's influence coercively.
