401–410 of 566 posts
1. Start new corporation 2. Buy new set of domain name with said corporation 3. Redirect Gawker (and other gawker sites) to new domains until they sell the carcass of the now-defunct Gawker.
Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could have better helped inform the public. The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you'd like it if Gawker was trolling your feed (and those of your friends and family) for what they feel to be sufficient disclosure to post some gossip clickbait?
If I was a public figure (as most billionaires are classified, by the courts), and posted a picture of me on a public profile page, then I would be entirely disingenuous to say "you have no right to know this!". Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises. "Like" it doe…
I am all for free speech, but if we are going to have libel and defamation laws (which I have mixed feelings about), everyone should be allowed to avail themselves of the opportunity to obtain compensation from those who have 'wronged' them.
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…
If justice is blind, why should funding matter? In other words, to limit the means of funding would be to admit that your bank balance affects the outcome when the whole point of the judicial system is to achieve fairness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key rule that Gawker broke here was "Don't make powerful enemies" Gawker's reputation and missteps aside, this is not a rule any respectable journalism organization would agree with.
That was inartfully worded. Respectable journalism organizations don't invade people's privacy in a way that would lose a lawsuit. Woodward and Bernstein were on Nixon's enemies list, but they weren't convicted of a crime or found liable for damages in any court. If you're going to cross that line, you'd better do so carefully. At the very least don't antagonize someone who can rightfully sue you into oblivion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Thiel arguably has "connection with the merits of the dispute". He feels that Gawker violated his privacy as well as Hogan's, and he wants Gawker to be punished and/or discouraged from further similar behavior. Just like the EFF or ACLU.
then he should file his own lawsuit. he has no standing to sue over the hogan case
In all these cases, powerful people with interest in a case decided to assist people who did have standing. Do you oppose that practice in all these cases?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video. What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? That was a private video, probably made illegally. Journalism is about making private things public when it suits the public. An individual (who is directly impacted by the revelations)…
> What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? For the record, he didn't say anything horrible about poor people. What he said was: > There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who belie…
When you're taped stating that you are not even going to try to help 47% of the population because of a stereotype I think that people have a valid point to be upset about.
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…
I'm happy about the outcome.
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/…
Calling his comments about that judge "racist" is a bit of a stretch.
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?
Most of the cases ACLU is involved in are against the government, not private entities.
(Which of course happens all the time, but still...)