281–290 of 566 posts
>kotaku Hopefully Gawker's demise will wipe out Kotaku forever as well. Whatever your views on the GamerGate movement (I certainly don't like what it has turned into thanks to /pol/), the corruption and collusion of Kotaku "journalists" is disgusting and unacceptable.
oh yeah for sure man
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that really change the underlying belief? Whether what Gawker did was libel, an invasion of privacy, or any other crime it boils down to Gawker violating the rights of other individuals and building a business model around that practice. This wasn't some brave investigative journalist exposing corruption, this was a hack posting the sex tape of a celebrity. They aren't even in the same ballpark.
> This wasn't some brave investigative journalist exposing corruption, this was a hack posting the sex tape of a celebrity. I agree, but the reason Gawker lost is important. It was because they violated someone's privacy. I strongly support violating the privacy of powerful, public figures in the future if it serves public interest. I agree that Gawker was stupid, greedy, and overreaching here, but I still worry that…
A racist billionaire[1], funding another racist millionaire[2], supporting another racist billionaire[3] But everyone seems to be ok with this, because of pseudo libertarianism? Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny." Oh man... what is going on!?! [1] https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/…
This is one of the fundamental tenants of western democracy that you're up against here, not "pseudo libertarianism". Rule of Law. We want our legal system to punish people and organizations that publish sex tapes made without the involved parties' consent. Sometimes that means that a "racist billionaire" funds a lawsuit by "another racist millionaire".
See also: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...
[deleted]
Thiel was already out of the closet: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker-... I also think that outing a wealthy, powerful man like Thiel is beneficial to society. It hopefully increases acceptance of homosexuality. Of all people who are hurt by being outed in a major publication, Thiel is probably near the end of the list, since he was already out among his associates and extremely wealthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. There is a difference between protecting a group from being silenced by the Government and holding a private company liable when they release a sex tape under the pretense of freedom of speech/freedom of the press. >I believe this will have a chilling effect on the media in the US. As well it should...its not exactly a slippery slope: sex t…
> sex tapes don't become newsworthy just because the subject is a celebrity What if the sex might have been non-consensual (see: Dominique Strauss-Kahn)? What if the sex is between a public official and his employee (see: Bill Clinton)? What if the sex is illegal (see: Eliot Spitzer)? The fact is that sex can be of interest to the public, which means video of that sex can also be of interest to the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta. Regardless of the outcome, many of us are dismayed that Thiel was able to weaponize the justice system using huge amounts of money. > why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? The tape of Hogan had racist comm…
But he funded a winning suit. He wasn't pestering them with this suit. It was a 100% legitimate suit. He funded a correct result.
You want scary? Even Hulk Hogan doesn't have enough money to fund a correct lawsuit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. There is a difference between protecting a group from being silenced by the Government and holding a private company liable when they release a sex tape under the pretense of freedom of speech/freedom of the press. >I believe this will have a chilling effect on the media in the US. As well it should...its not exactly a slippery slope: sex t…
> sex tapes don't become newsworthy just because the subject is a celebrity What if the sex might have been non-consensual (see: Dominique Strauss-Kahn)? What if the sex is between a public official and his employee (see: Bill Clinton)? What if the sex is illegal (see: Eliot Spitzer)? The fact is that sex can be of interest to the public, which means video of that sex can also be of interest to the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't, but the damage amount is excessive.
It's interesting that it was actually higher than what the plaintiffs requested. It wasn't clear to me who sets that, the judge or the jury?
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/sentencing-la...
A few thoughts: 1. The pressure point here was a court ruling declining to stay enforcement of the $140M judgment pending appeal. This left Gawker having to post a $50M bond in order to avoid enforcement proceedings by which its assets could have been seized and its business literally dismantled. Gawker may or may not ultimately prove to have a successful basis upon which to get this judgment reversed but, without a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on media we should all be applauding. Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what…
The problem is that a sufficiently wealthy adversary can fund a case with little to no merit and the worst case outcome is having to pay the attorney's fees of the defendant. In the best case you can just bleed your opponent dry. This happened to Mother Jones.
Maybe Florida anti-SLAPP laws aren't good enough, I don't know. But it's a tough balance. Bollea's case was determine by a judge to have enough merit to take to court.
Bollea will probably lose on appeal. But he definitely has the right to his day in court.