191–200 of 566 posts
Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK. I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and close down unfavor…
I'm a free speech absolutist, but what precedent does this set that's new? The person that leaked the "Fappening" items is also being prosecuted, why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture.
After Thiel was revealed as the financier, some in the media saw an opportunity to re-caste the narrative in a way that they knew would appeal to our hatred of the rich and our fear for their abuse of power. The story became all about Thiel the alleged bully, the abuser of power, his petty grudge, etc etc. It was effective manipulation, just look at the comments here from those who think this 'sets a bad precedent'.
Never mind that Thiel's side was right and Gawker was wrong. Never mind that the mechanism employed to achieve justice here is basically the same mechanism that the ACLU uses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and Gawker had purchased insurance to deal with the ramifications of their actions. Bollea's lawyers, as funded by Thiel, then decided to specifically drop the claim that would allow the damages payout to have been made from insurance. That's fairly vindictive. Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtle…
> Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtless on a gay cruise, I think it's fairly safe the rest of the world didn't need Valleywag to tell them of your homosexuality. Does all that evidence matter? Shouldn't it be up to Theil when and where he outs himself instead of blog like Valleywag doing it for him?
When I go to the supermarket I see 500 headlines about famous people dating and breaking up and cheating on their partners, etc.
Sure it's a little lowbrow but do we really feel that rumors about Brad Pitt and Carrie Underwood's dating life are ok to publish but his aren't? Are Peter Thiel's relationships specifically somehow exempt from this aspect of the culture?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtless on a gay cruise, I think it's fairly safe the rest of the world didn't need Valleywag to tell them of your homosexuality. Does all that evidence matter? Shouldn't it be up to Theil when and where he outs himself instead of blog like Valleywag doing it for him?
If you post a profile picture like that when you are a person of public interest, I think there's a fairly good argument that you -have- outed yourself, at least implicitly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't sympathize, but it does reek of "jackpot justice". That's a horrible thing to do, but is it so horrible as to warrant an effective "death penalty" for any company that does it once? And what about all the other people that were the victims of such an invasion of privacy, but didn't get a reward big enough to retire on thirty times over? The core problem is that the "justice" system is so capricious that only…
The legal system fundamentally works like that. It's the "shoot one to encourage the others" approach. Not everyone gets made whole but the sort of behavior exhibited by Gawker will likely be a lot rarer in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this different than the ACLU looking for an ideal test case for a civil rights issue?
The ACLU typically expands rights and free speech while this is somewhere on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real precedent is obviously "don't piss of billionaires because they have many ways they can crush you".
That isn't obvious to me at least. It was morally, ethically and legally wrong to publish that video. Now they pay the price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it kind of perverse to champion a company based solely on their profitability. Gawker was a profitable media company because they were one of the the only ones debased enough to resort to muckraking for their tasteless, voyeuristic audiences. Good riddance, I say.
Why are you using "muckraking" as a negative term?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding people losing their jobs - that is a result of the terrible judgement and values of the leadership of Gawker. They are not being 'punished' for anything. Do you think that the people at Ford were 'punished' when the leadership of Ford made bad decisions that cost people their jobs? "emotional comfort of a billionaire" That is very dismissive. Are people worth less to you when they have more money?
> Do you think that the people at Ford were 'punished' when the leadership of Ford made bad decisions that cost people their jobs? Yes