Is billionaire VC Peter Thiel trying to break up Google?

Post by oculusthrift » Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 4:55 PM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #15

oculusthrift wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

held to account != able to be sued legally. i agree that getting protested is one thug but getting sued and shut down is a legal issue which is contrary to free speech

No, it's not. Freedom of speech doesn't cover slander/libel. Freedom of speech means government can't put you in a cage for your expressed ideas (with few exceptions, like yelling fire in a theater).

Post by kyledrake » Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #132

kyledrake wrote: post #44

> Thiel, a billionaire libertarian Which thing made him a libertarian: the idea of using a government agency to break up a company, or the stump speech he did for the alt right nationalist?

Thiel calls himself a libertarian: "I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.” " [1]: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

Post by icebraining » Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 6:13 PM UTC

indubitable wrote: post #143

icebraining wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting too in that I think everybody can see that violence inherently breeds violence On the contrary, we created an official group tasked with dealing out violence (the police) because it's generally accepted (whether it's true or not) that some violence must be met with violence.

The police obviously are not tasked out with dealing violence. They stop violence and are certainly capable of defending themselves when necessary. In the US this line between defense and aggression is becoming blurred, but that's more of a deterioration of a society than the actual role of police. And that blurring supports the point. As police face more regular violence, they themselves tend to become more violent,…

Post by CalChris » Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 7:46 PM UTC

jpttsn wrote: post #35

dguaraglia wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm pretty sure he's referring to the whole Gawker vs. Hulk Hogan trial thing, which was one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press in recent history. Whether you believe Gawker deserved it or not, he used Terry Bollea (Hogan) as a prop to push his own agenda.

Putin and Xi must be relieved to hear that Gawker going bankrupt is “one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press in recent history.”

Post by glenneroo » Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 8:06 PM UTC

scruple wrote: post #165

forgot-my-pw wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the spoiler?

IIRC, they tried to make a first amendment argument about ... releasing someones sex tape without their consent. Oh, and, of course, calling that "journalism."