|
Kalman posted:Maybe so, but 1) since Thiel was bankrolling the case, he likely got final say and 2) the jury deserved to know that Thiel's hurt feelings were part of why the case was being brought. Why should who is paying for the lawsuit change whether or not the defendant is wrong/guilty?
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:funding nuisance lawsuits to carry out a personal vendetta against a media outfit is detestable Fixed that for you There is nothing remotely detestable about a third party funding a legitimate lawsuit. Gawker did something hosed up and it was fully legitimate for Hogan to sue them for what they did. It was also fully legitimate for Hogan to optimize his legal strategy to maximize pain instead of optimizing it to maximize compensation. The fact that some rich rear end in a top hat with an axe to grind came along and said "hey I'll pick up the tab if you go for the jugular" does not change the moral calculus at all. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:"the trial court consistently hosed up in light of the appeals courts and the trial verdict will be overturned on appeal" is neither uncommon or hypocritical People keep saying this but I'm not seeing any sources posted and Gawker's preliminary injunction motion got shot down all the way up the appeal chain. A bankruptcy causing judgement with a high likelihood of being overturned on appeal is pretty much the loving raison d'etre for the existence of preliminary injunctions pending appeal so until someone actually posts some actual evidence for this likely being overturned on appeal I'm going to assume this is just people talking out their rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It's weird you find your own ignorance about the legal differences between what makes something newsworthy or not humorous, but hey I'm not one to begrudge a chuckle. well so long as you can enjoy your court-sanctioned revenge porn i guess
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Fixed that for you Here's an except from the legal saga around trying to force gawker to take down the article and video. US District Court posted:Plaintiffs public persona, including the publicity he and his family derived from a television reality show detailing their personal life, his own book describing an affair he had during his marriage, prior reports by other parties of the existence and content of the Video, and Plaintiffs own public discussion of issues relating to his marriage, sex life, and the Video all demonstrate that the Video is a subject of general interest and concern to the community.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Why should who is paying for the lawsuit change whether or not the defendant is wrong/guilty? Among other reasons, because it goes to the credibility of the plaintiff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Jennifer Lawrence has discussed sex in public before. Therefore these nudes I illegally obtained are of interest to the community.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm pretty sure Jennifer Lawrence has discussed sex in public before. Therefore these nudes I illegally obtained are of interest to the community. Come back to me when several courts agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm pretty sure Jennifer Lawrence has discussed sex in public before. Therefore these nudes I illegally obtained are of interest to the community. Hypothetically if in those nudes she was saying racist poo poo, or doing something offensive that as a famous person who represents brands would be important for people to know then sure. You probably should just report what was said, and maybe just the audio or something. but it probably would be newsworthy albeit unnessecary and immoral to just post everything. He just talking about sex wouldn't do it, it's not noteworthy or surprising that she has sex.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Come back to me when several courts agree with you. it's still weird to me how you cherry pick the court decisions you agree with as ethically good and the ones you disagree with as flawed and destined to lose on appeal, all in the pursuit of delineating when it's ok to post pictures of a celebrity loving me, personaly, i don't think it's ever ok to post nude images or video of a person without their consent but maybe i'm just old fashioned
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
So how about those emails
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
it's discussions like these that make think the dnd hivemind complaints are bullshit. people seem pretty evenly divided on this (boring) issue
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:So how about those emails Oh it's not about the e-mails anymore. It's about good old quid pro quo corruption accusations again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:me, personaly, i don't think it's ever ok to post nude images or video of a person without their consent but maybe i'm just old fashioned Only a sith deals in absolutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:So how about those emails Show us the sex tape Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Hypothetically if in those nudes she was saying racist poo poo, or doing something offensive that as a famous person who represents brands would be important for people to know then sure. "um, he said slut when they were having sex, obviously he's sexist, i can totally publish his private sex tapes!" even better: "she said she was a feminist, but in this sex tape she wants the guy to choke her! obviously she hates women, im off to publish her personal videos without her consent" itt people want a literal 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
It's hosed up that Hillary's safeword is "Benghazi"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Show us the sex tape Hillary. God, no, don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It's weird you find your own ignorance about the legal differences between what makes something newsworthy or not humorous, but hey I'm not one to begrudge a chuckle. You of all people commenting on people staking out moral positions formed on legal ignorance is like an entire battery of 155mm firing from inside the most delicate glass house ever constructed. case in point: Trabisnikof posted:Here's an except from the legal saga around trying to force gawker to take down the article and video. You seem to think that the standard applied to a motion for a pre-trial preliminary injunction requesting prior restraint on speech where in the very same ruling the judge explicitly states that the denial of the injunction is based on likelihood of success not final determination of merit and does not present a preclusion to the case going forward is the same thing as what the appeals court will be applying. edit: here's the full ruling if anyone actually feels like knowing what's going on instead of just trying to fling select context free quotes from hollywood gossip rags: http://search.flcourts.org/texis/se...t&id=531f460c2a Jarmak fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
It is never, ever, under any circumstances acceptable to publicly share sex videos without the consent of all participants. No, not then either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:So how about those emails Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes. To get around the paywall just copy that little title there and put it in googles. If true, it's as big of a non-issue as sane people thought it would be. State and CIA were having a pissing match about when drone strikes would happen, the CIA agreed to give a brief window of notice, diplomats in the field needed to get information in a timely fashion so they used regular old emails for communications instead of hunting down a secure room.  quote:Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's still weird to me how you cherry pick the court decisions you agree with as ethically good and the ones you disagree with as flawed and destined to lose on appeal, all in the pursuit of delineating when it's ok to post pictures of a celebrity loving american conceptions of privacy rights are abysmal, legally and culturally (and the law's often based on a judge's best guess at how culture works so there's probably a feedback loop of sorts)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Here's an except from the legal saga around trying to force gawker to take down the article and video. I guess it also was the public interest to see actresses like Kirsten Dunst, Melissa Benoist, J-Law, Brie Larson and others to have their nude pictures put up right? I mean they took pictures and filmed themselves right? So it should be fine for everyone to see their pictures that were stolen from them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Among other reasons, because it goes to the credibility of the plaintiff. No it doesn't, I'll admit my civ pro knowledge is pretty basic so maybe this one of those things where it's bizarro world on the other side of the house but in crim pro land this would be a textbook example of info that is highly prejudicial with zero probative value.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:It is never, ever, under any circumstances acceptable to publicly share sex videos without the consent of all participants. No, not then either. What if they're long dead
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Thiel didn't give a gently caress about Hogan or his case except as a means to an end. He would have funded countless nuisance lawsuits against Gawker with his bottomless war chest until he sank them. It's not a coincidence that Thiel is a supporter and delegate of the candidate who has called for "opening up the libel laws" so he can take down the Washington Post for writing "bad things" about him. He's a thin-skinned oligarch who thinks media outlets critical of him shouldn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Thiel didn't give a gently caress about Hogan or his case except as a means to an end. He would have funded countless nuisance lawsuits against Gawker with his bottomless war chest until he sank them. well it's a lame thing that vindictive businessmen have existed, currently exist, and will exist in the future, and will use their money to do things. that is a crying shame on the other hand he really hit a grand slam by funding a valid lawsuit against gawker brought by hulk hogan, when gawker invaded hogan's privacy and made money by posting jokes about his wrinkled dick
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
If there's one thing I'm most shocked by it's the idea that anybody's penis is worth a $140 million lawsuit. And once I calmed down a bit and put my video camera away and my pants back on it's that any individual article is considered grounds for bankrupting a major media institution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
greatn posted:What if they're long dead If a sex tape of Bobby and Jack Kennedy Eiffel Towering Marilyn Monroe showed up... then yeah I think that would be news worthy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
IIRC Gawker wrote several articles about Hulk's "main event"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Thiel didn't give a gently caress about Hogan or his case except as a means to an end. He would have funded countless nuisance lawsuits against Gawker with his bottomless war chest until he sank them. Peter Thiel being an unmitigated gigantic rear end in a top hat does not change whether the outcome of the lawsuit was good and/or correct. Peter Thiel hypothetically being willing to drown Gawker in a million nuisance lawsuits does not make this a nuisance lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
It isn't really about the fact that Gawker got rightly blasted for profiting off the fruits of gross invasion of privacy, but that it wrongly emboldens people like Thiel. It's an Autobahn problem at its worst. e: minor thing, but Chokes McGee posted:I understand it's a malapropism but I also like to think this was the only sentence she said in the conversation. 
FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
greatn posted:What if they're long dead I'm actually curious about this, is there any precedent covering whether dead people have any right to privacy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:on the other hand he really hit a grand slam by funding a valid lawsuit against gawker brought by hulk hogan, when gawker invaded hogan's privacy and made money by posting jokes about his wrinkled dick Am I supposed to suspend disbelief long enough to think that if I was famous or my dick was funny looking (or both) and someone leaked pictures of it online, that wouldn't be something people would talk and joke about? If so, what's in it for me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
It's now official that Ziff-Davis is buying Gawker (for $90-100 mil) so I guess we'll see how the appeal turns out after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It isn't really about the fact that Gawker got rightly blasted for profiting off the fruits of gross invasion of privacy, but that it wrongly emboldens people like Thiel. It's an Autobahn problem at its worst. If the concern is that there are a bunch of legitimate lawsuits out there that will now be seized upon by vengeful businessmen then that sounds like the problem is insufficient access to the legal system for all those people who can't afford to seek remedy, not the vengeful businessmen. edit: I english good
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I understand it's a malapropism but I also like to think this was the only sentence she said in the conversation. The only funnier thing is you thinking he's a she.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Another one falls victim to the trap of southern guys being given girl names because they were guy names 200 years ago
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Am I supposed to suspend disbelief long enough to think that if I was famous or my dick was funny looking (or both) and someone leaked pictures of it online, that wouldn't be something people would talk and joke about? If so, what's in it for me? for sure, but there's a bit of difference if your sex tape is passed around the back alleys of the internet where randos can giggle about it vs. your sex tape being widely posted in the open by a for profit company that is getting paid by advertisiers with your dick as the content for example, gawker did a complete about face between the hulk hogan nudes while lambasting people for sharing (not even profiting from!) the celeb nude leaks of 2014. it's been brought up a dozen times in the last few pages because it's stunningly hypocritical also lol at everyone attacking thiel for being mad at gawker for outing him, the implicit assumption being that it's ok to out people if we don't like them. or post videos of them having sex if we don't like them. privacy is only for the ideologically correct boner confessor fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No it doesn't, I'll admit my civ pro knowledge is pretty basic so maybe this one of those things where it's bizarro world on the other side of the house but in crim pro land this would be a textbook example of info that is highly prejudicial with zero probative value. In civil litigation this is absolutely useful as showing the interests of the plaintiff in the case. It's not guaranteed to come in, but it does enough of the time to be worth fighting about. We fight about it a bunch in the context of funders or RPIs for patent trolls, for example. (Another reason is potential conflict-of-interest issues, the potential that the funder has made public statements contrary to their litigation positions, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
e: wait a minute, it's a chantilly say post. gently caress quoting that poo poo and/or engaging. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:06
|
|