361–370 of 566 posts
Its amazing how many people are coming to claim this is "100% awesome", but in another thread will say that reddit closing threads that share stolen nudes or preteen porn is censorship that should be illegal and is demonstrating the power of SJWs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment exposed me to the big gap between the meanings of muckraker in US and UK English: 1. (US) One who investigates and exposes issues of corruption that often violate widely held values; e.g. one who exposes political corruption or the poor conditions in prisons. 2. (Britain) A sensationalist, scandal-mongering journalist, one who is not driven by any social principles.
The term was coined as a perjorative (by Teddy Roosevelt) and then co-opted as a term of honor by the journalists he was attacking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. For example, it's illegal to film what's happening inside a slaughterhouse[1]. Some people are getting into trouble for filming cops[2]. I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be t…
> A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spy…
That strikes me as overreach. There's clearly a privacy question here, but the video is real, the words are real, and the events actually happened.
I've never seen the video. I don't care. Hogan's sex life is not interesting to me. People already masterbate to him.
I'm struggling to understand how a large amount of damage was dealt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. For example, it's illegal to film what's happening inside a slaughterhouse[1]. Some people are getting into trouble for filming cops[2]. I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be t…
> A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spy…
Its amazing how many people are coming to claim this is "100% awesome", but in another thread will say that reddit closing threads that share stolen nudes or preteen porn is censorship that should be illegal and is demonstrating the power of SJWs.
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…
Keep your eyes out in the next 10-20 on the wisdom of easy and prolific debt because we're so much smarter than our ancestors who viewed it with suspicion, for instance. We've already been served some wake up calls but as near as I can tell we've hit the "snooze" button.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And engadget and kotaku and most of the other tech related websites you probably read. Also its a good lesson to other sites to police content to ensure no one says anything bad about billionaires. Thank god for thiel protecting us from horrible things like censorship!
> Also its a good lesson to other sites to police content to ensure no one says anything bad about billionaires. There's a brave new world of pro-billionaires media awaiting us. Just compare this lavish Vanity Fair piece ( http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/photos-sean-parker-we... ) on Sean Parker's wedding to the ugly reality behind it all, as published by Gawker: http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-full-damage-of-…
As opposed to the brave world of billion-dollar news corporations destroying millionaires.
For context, you really should have published Mr. Parker's defense: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/sean-p...
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…
As to point 3, your question is still too narrow. We should ask if even self funding of legal matters should be allowed. Even if we say this case should have happened because of funding, we are left with two major issues. First, we are left saying that this outcome would have been fine if Hulk had the money to do scorched earth. Second, we directly admit that the outcome of this case is the result of the money spent.…
A state monopoly on legal services where lawyers are assigned by lot? A system of "loser pays legal costs" where lawyers bid for likely wins/profitable cases?