Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
1–10 of 206 posts
Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
#2I'm afraid I kind of agree. What brought me over to Thiel's side on this particular issue (at least mostly) was when I realized that Gawker's publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. While I still understand the problem with outsiders bankrolling lawsuits, I can't bring myself to have much sympathy with Gawker here.
I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things but on this one I see his point.
Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
#3I'm afraid I kind of agree. What brought me over to Thiel's side on this particular issue (at least mostly) was when I realized that Gawker's publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. While I still understand the problem with outsiders bankrolling lawsuits, I can't bring myself to have much sympathy with Gawker here. I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things bu…
> publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female.
Can you elaborate on that? What crime are you referring to where the victim's gender is significant?
Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
#4I'm afraid I kind of agree. What brought me over to Thiel's side on this particular issue (at least mostly) was when I realized that Gawker's publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. While I still understand the problem with outsiders bankrolling lawsuits, I can't bring myself to have much sympathy with Gawker here. I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things bu…
I don't think one needs to necessarily choose a side. I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system.
The tension between privacy and speech is a discussion that needs to be had. Litigating it in a Pinellas County courtroom is an odd way to go about having that debate.
Thiel has now demonstrated that those with deep enough pockets can now use the courts to exact revenge in a roundabout way. Yes, Gawker is tawdry but one can't help pondering a chilling effect here on more worthy stories. Were I a journalist, I'd certainly think twice now of pursuing an investigative piece that might offend a billionaire, given that my own financial livelihood could become fair game.
Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
#5I'm afraid I kind of agree. What brought me over to Thiel's side on this particular issue (at least mostly) was when I realized that Gawker's publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. While I still understand the problem with outsiders bankrolling lawsuits, I can't bring myself to have much sympathy with Gawker here. I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things bu…
> publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. Can you elaborate on that? What crime are you referring to where the victim's gender is significant?
I was referring to the popular reaction, not legal implications or moral realities. The general public tends not to see this as being as serious when the victim is male.
Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
#6Peter Thiel is all for radical freedom and libertarianism as long as the free speech that he protects isn't critical of himself.
He vehemently defended his friend's right to yell "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of AIDS!" outside an instructor's residence. As he explains in his book, "His demonstration directly challenged one of the most fundamental taboos: To suggest a correlation between homosexual acts and AIDS implies that one of the multiculturalists’ favorite lifestyles is more prone to contracting the disease and that not all lifestyles are equally desirable."
How can someone be so radically opposed to encroachments on free speech, and yet so quick to quietly fund lawsuits against those who criticize you?
Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
#7I'm afraid I kind of agree. What brought me over to Thiel's side on this particular issue (at least mostly) was when I realized that Gawker's publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. While I still understand the problem with outsiders bankrolling lawsuits, I can't bring myself to have much sympathy with Gawker here. I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things bu…
If you read Gawker apologia, you continually see the claim that this is going to stifle journalism. Some people aren't able to distinguish between writing a story about a sex tape and actually showing the sex tape, when the latter behavior is the crux on which this whole thing is based.
As far as gender goes, one only has to consider that if the rule is going to be "Public figure + sexual aspect to the person's persona (e.g. Hogan talking about sex on Stern) = unlimited right to broadcast sexual material", then no porn star ever has the right to private sex again. Since that is clearly unacceptable, the error must be with the proposed rule.
Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. Can you elaborate on that? What crime are you referring to where the victim's gender is significant?
I was referring to the popular reaction, not legal implications or moral realities. The general public tends not to see this as being as serious when the victim is male.
Aren't you forgetting there was a second person in the video?
Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
#9I'm having trouble reconciling the following two quotes
> I am proud to have contributed financial support to his case. I will support him until his final victory — Gawker said it intends to appeal — and I would gladly support someone else in the same position.
> A free press is vital for public debate. Since sensitive information can sometimes be publicly relevant, exercising judgment is always part of the journalist’s profession. It’s not for me to draw the line
So this makes me think that, if Peter Thiel considers a journalist's particular article morally wrong, he will help the supposed victim to sue them. In the case of Gawker it's hard to say Gawker was innocent but at the same time what if the next case is something more grey? Peter says he wants a free press but it sounds more to me like he wants a free press by his own judgement.
I'm not a fan of Gawker at all but having a billionaire bankroll lawsuits against publications when his opinion is that they're doing something morally wrong...worries me that it'll stifle.
Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker
#10I'm afraid I kind of agree. What brought me over to Thiel's side on this particular issue (at least mostly) was when I realized that Gawker's publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. While I still understand the problem with outsiders bankrolling lawsuits, I can't bring myself to have much sympathy with Gawker here. I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things bu…
I don't think one needs to necessarily choose a side. I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system. The tension between privacy and speech is a discussion that needs to be had. Litigating it in a Pinellas County courtroom is an odd way to go about having that debate. Thiel has now demonstrated that those with deep…
Consider the way things were before Thiel showed up. Gawker destroyed lives[1] with impunity because their victims didn't have deep enough pockets to fight back in court. Thiel is just leveling the playing field.
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-edito...