341–350 of 566 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Sixth Judicial Court of Florida is part of the government.
Adjudicating between two private parties. Or are you advocating for privately-owned courts?
Not advocating anything here really. Just pointing out that the "first amendment only applies to government actions" argument isn't valid in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I still worry that next time... People are acting like their is no thought put into these type of court cases. This isn't a universal precedent that applies to every situation. It doesn't prevent any journalist from pursuing legitimate news stories and invading privacy along the way. It only prevents journalist from invading someone's privacy where the only story is the invasion itself.
Huh? That's not true at all. A billionaire could fund cases against a media company entirely irrespective of the merit of those cases - the media company would still be forced to pay the legal fees associated with defending themselves, even if it's as simple as just getting it thrown out of court. Do it enough times and you've bankrupted the company. For an example, Mother Jones was brought to the brink of bankruptcy…
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…
On the one hand it's "A rich billionaire with pockets deeper than a media organization, funding a lawsuit"
On the other hand it's "A media organization that posts what they want because it's too costly to sue them"
Perhaps the precedent is "Don't try to make a quick buck posting sex tapes without permission just because you don't think someone can afford to come after you"?
It's not as black and white as most free speech and freedom of the press issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The justice system in any democracy should be a level playing field in the eyes of the law, not a pay-to-play free for all.
But where does the ethical issue arise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually the judge wouldn't let Gawker present evidence from the FBI that both Hogan and the woman knew they were being taped. This means that not only is it possible that they lied on the stand, but with the huge amount required to appeal ($50 million), it's possible that they may get away with perjury.
>Actually the judge wouldn't let Gawker present evidence from the FBI that both Hogan and the woman knew they were being taped. Why? That seems like an important piece of evidence.
On an almost daily basis Bubba talked on air about he had cameras all over his house and taped everything. I find it very hard to believe that me--a random radio listener--knew that he taped everything in his house, but supposedly his best friend Hulk Hogan was oblivious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The justice system in any democracy should be a level playing field in the eyes of the law, not a pay-to-play free for all.
The jury is the closest thing to a direct democracy America has. Judges can be corrupted. The jury is basically a direct poll of 12 average Americans. Its known that the court system is imperfect, but juries serve as a restraint on otherwise powerful judges.
Lovely to see Hacker News praising the wisdom of the billionaire who just managed to shut down a press outlet he didn't like. This new era of feudalism is off to a great start.
I'd love to see someone suggesting suing Breitbart/Fox out of existence. I mean... they're just as 'newsful' as gawker was...
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…
Other replies to your comment have pointed out that the actions of the EFF and so on are generally against the government rather than private parties. But I wonder how re-instating "maintenance" would affect issues like consortiums funding defences against patent trolls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"when unethical, unnecessary, and/or pointless to do so, and may result in you taking a literal or figurative beating". ie "common sense" meets "pick your battles"
So you're totally OK with the chilling effect impact of wealth and political power on journalism. Got it.
Those with more money, skills, whatever will always be in a position of power over those with less.
Thiel could've most certainly crushed Gawker even without the court system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't talk about issue 3 without mentioning things like the EFF, ACLU, NAACP, or any number of legitimate third parties that have made it part of their mission to support cases they think are important. How do you deal with those separately or how would you prevent Thiel from simply creating a similar organization and using it for his own personal agenda?
I was going to say the same thing, but I think this is the key phrase: | litigation where the funder has otherwise has no connection with the merits of the dispute. I think those organizations and other social policy groups can demonstrate that they have a vested interest in the merits of the dispute. In fact that litmus test may be overbroad, allowing any corporation for whom the case is useful to their business str…