|
Spacebump posted:Obama is tied to this so the right will hate it no matter what. Don't fool yourself. Read the last part of my sentence again, namely "no one aside from the right will care", basically saying exactly what you said. The right will care no matter how it's spun. Everyone else, who knows!
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, yes. Maybe so. My original point, however, was that 'public figure'-dom as defined by Bi certainly doesn't seem to be something she sought out - it's something that can just fall into your lap for bullshit reasons. That means that avoiding it like the dude I first quoted said you can isn't necessarily as easy as he asserted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Yeah, if the 400 million was already owed to Iran and Obama refused to hand it over unless prisoners were released that should make it the hard ball tough guy foreign policy Repubs go gaga over. It will be a non-story
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Maybe so. My point, however, was that 'public figure'-dom as defined by Bi certainly doesn't seem to be something she sought out - it's something that can just fall into your lap for bullshit reasons. Sometimes, yes. Though those cases aren't all that often. Also it's not as defined by me -- it's literally as defined by SCOTUS. Here's a longer primer on who is and who isn't a public figure: https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation#7 Though it's within context of defamation, which this case isn't really about. This case was about a right to privacy, which is a little more complex. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
duz posted:"gently caress the White House Correspondent's Dinner" I would pay a lot more attention to speeches if officials could swear in them without getting into too much trouble for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Here's another example for you to think about. Do journalists have a right to publish pictures of coffins coming off planes with the names of the dead inside? DoD has long discouraged/banned it, and it's an inherent violation of the deceased family's privacy. Does freedom of the press outweigh the right to privacy? Hell yes! The coffins aren't named, no one knew who the gently caress is in them. Of COURSE a military doesn't want the public to see them losing in any way, or give the other side a possible psy op opportunity. How about this, if you signed up to be a soldier, sent to a war that was wrong, and died due to poo poo like being sent into battle with improper weapons, intel, or anything else fucktwitted done by your government. Wouldn't you want your corpse used to highlight the problems? gently caress yes. Edit: I bet you some of those coffins were used to smuggle some of the billions of dollars that went missing in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah, if the 400 million was already owed to Iran and Obama refused to hand it over unless prisoners were released that should make it the hard ball tough guy foreign policy Repubs go gaga over. The money was owed to Iran since 1979. We withheld it after they seized the embassy and never really addressed it. People who dislike Obama are just going to say that they should have kept withholding it from them, because now we are *funding the Ayatollah*
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
iospace posted:Depends on how it's spun. If it's "We won't give you the 400m unless you release the hostages", then no one aside from the right will care. That's a nice 400 million ya got there drat shame if something happened to it. GOP will overplay there hand on this like they do everything else, remember when they spent all that time on "you didn't build that".... oh wait trump will make sure its not even a 6 hour story
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
lizardman posted:*A good synopsis* That is a very good write up, but there's just one detail you missed - when the billionaire backed the lawsuit, he didn't just give some money to the person he was backing out pick up the plaintiff's legal tab - he specifically withdrew charges that would permit the defendant's insurance from paying out, and that this behavior was contradictory to the plaintiff's best interests. He specifically put hurting Gawker ahead of Hogan's interests. That right there, plus the billionaire's influence, is what makes this morally repugnant. He went out of his way to destroy a journalist organization (admittedly a shady as gently caress one) and the lives of two of its top employees, out of spite. Now imagine that same power leveraged by Trump or the Kochs against leftist media. But hey according to PTD we shouldn't worry because it was done in the past, thus we shouldn't be alarmed or condemn such behavior in the present.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Hell yes! That's one view. The other is that it's a gross violation of privacy of mourning families who might not exactly want to have their loved ones thrust into an editorial statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Maybe so. My original point, however, was that 'public figure'-dom as defined by Bi certainly doesn't seem to be something she sought out - it's something that can just fall into your lap for bullshit reasons. I don't disagree with you. It's just kind of an orthogonal issue to Hulk Hogan, who spoke about the incident in the tape in public prior to the release of the tape, is a celebrity voluntarily and where the appellate court has already overruled the lower court RE: whether the public figure exception applies and the tape was newsworthy or not. Add in that it's also a case of a billionaire trying to silence a media outlet, UK style, over a personal grudge and like, gently caress, pick a better case for this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The money was owed to Iran since 1979. We withheld it after they seized the embassy and never really addressed it. People who dislike Obama are just going to say that they should have kept withholding it from them, because now we are *funding the Ayatollah* Share if you think we should spend money on homeless veterans before supporting terrorists! One like = 1 amen!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:That is a very good write up, but there's just one detail you missed - when the billionaire backed the lawsuit, he didn't just give some money to the person he was backing out pick up the plaintiff's legal tab - he specifically withdrew charges that would permit the defendant's insurance from paying out, and that this behavior was contradictory to the plaintiff's best interests. He specifically put hurting Gawker ahead of Hogan's interests. That right there, plus the billionaire's influence, is what makes this morally repugnant. He went out of his way to destroy a journalist organization (admittedly a shady as gently caress one) and the lives of two of its top employees, out of spite. This is a valid point. Funding another's lawsuit is legal, and even in cases admirable, but the lawyer must always remember that their duty is to the client, not the funder. When the funder starts altering strategy and tactics, even if the client goes along, that's when a lawyer's ethical flags should definitely start going up. There was a brief debate about the ethics of the Thiel situation that bounced around when it first arose, and if it happens again we might have the ABA meeting to discuss how to handle it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Hell yes! Other side of that: look at the GOP and Vilerat's mother using Vilerat's death as a political attack point against Clinton. Unintended consequences are a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:That right there, plus the billionaire's influence, is what makes this morally repugnant. He went out of his way to destroy a journalist organization (admittedly a shady as gently caress one) and the lives of two of its top employees, out of spite. i dont think it's morally repugnant to desire revenge againt someone who humilated you, on purpose, for profit i also don't think it's a moral good to out people against their wishes, or post revenge porn. maybe i'm old fashioned
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Like for the record, I don't think Gawker should have published the sex tape. I think it's not really particularly newsworthy or could have been reported on without actually publishing the tape itself (though the video was published in a highly edited form.)Popular Thug Drink posted:i dont think it's morally repugnant to desire revenge againt someone who humilated you, on purpose, for profit Desire and acting on are two different things though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
It sounds like we ransomed the 400m for hostages, rather than the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Winkie01 posted:That's a nice 400 million ya got there drat shame if something happened to it. GOP will overplay there hand on this like they do everything else, remember when they spent all that time on "you didn't build that".... oh wait trump will make sure its not even a 6 hour story quote:Joseph Schmitz, named as one of five advisers by the Trump campaign in March, is accused of bragging when he was Defense Department inspector general a decade ago that he pushed out Jewish employees. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article96421087.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i dont think it's morally repugnant to desire revenge againt someone who humilated you, on purpose, for profit Yes it is. It's understandable to be angry or upset. Revenge is very rarely not morally repugnant and certainly not in this case. "They did something bad to me so literally anything I do is justified as revenge" is a pretty gross viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Buffer posted:I don't disagree with you. It's just kind of an orthogonal issue to Hulk Hogan, who spoke about the incident in the tape in public prior to the release of the tape, is a celebrity voluntarily and where the appellate court has already overruled the lower court RE: whether the public figure exception applies and the tape was newsworthy or not. Add in that it's also a case of a billionaire trying to silence a media outlet, UK style, over a personal grudge and like, gently caress, pick a better case for this? I mean, sure, that's worse by far, sure. But "Hulk Hogan Sex Tapes" aren't exactly the great moral issue of our time - it's petty tabloid bullshit, and if Gawker hadn't pursued it they wouldn't have been in nearly such a perilous legal position to begin with. I'm deeply troubled by the precedent, yeah, that's precisely why it frustrates me that Gawker chose such an idiotic hill to die on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's one view. The other is that it's a gross violation of privacy of mourning families who might not exactly want to have their loved ones thrust into an editorial statement. A view used by those that sent the poor sods over to get killed. But hey, better to keep it all quiet so that the families suffer in silence. Once they get their folded up flags who gives a gently caress about them or why they died.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I understand there will be folks who disagree, so I guess to help me understand, where exactly does the objection start? If the third party was not a single wealthy person but a fund generated by contributions from hundreds of sympathizers (and let's say many of whom may have their own personal motivations for donating), do we feel more comfortable with that? What if the same billionaire were still contributing in this case, but of course he doesn't have to put in as much because there are hundreds of other donaters, is his involvement still dubious? The specific thing I have an issue with is that, assuming that Hogan had actually suffered harm, Hogan was either convinced or paid to pursue a lesser claim, worth probably less money, against his own supposed financial self-interest specifically so that insurance could not cover the lawsuit. That's really the main line crossed to me - when plaintiffs are manipulated by people with money to act against their own self-interest to engage in third-party revenge. In no normal world would a plaintiff attorney EVER turn down insurance money -- in fact, a huge number of lawsuits are specifically engineered to access insurance money when they shouldn't even be able to. In this case, maybe Hogan has enough cash already that he didn't care and shutting down Gawker was his own personal best interest, but it's a really dangerous precedent being set. Like it or not, the civil justice system generally provides for one remedy for being wronged; money. It's designed to do that, personal feelings on the subject aside, and it cuts both ways. Plaintiffs can get awarded money for really difficult to calculate things like loss of companionship, loss of consortium, etc. Juries can't impose regulations or sanctions on a losing defendant. A plaintiff can't sue and just say "well, I don't want any money, I just want them to change this policy so no one else gets hurt." That's how the legal system is structured, and the idea is that being wronged doesn't mean you can legally just go shut a company down. Thiel and Hogan found a legal loophole. Even though it's a valid loophole, it's still troubling. Also, that someone with a case like Hogan's would "have to drop the lawsuit" because he couldn't afford it is virtually impossible. There are SO many plaintiff attorneys that work on contingency that would have jumped at the chance for a case like this. I have no idea what he worked out with his current attorneys; if they were fancy enough to refuse contingency or what, but there's absolutely no way that he or anyone with a case like his would be in a situation where they wouldn't be able to sue without third party financing. In terms of just purely financing lawsuits and stuff, that ship sailed a few years ago. It's gross but it's established; this isn't new. A lot of people may not know this, but there are investment groups and firms that exist right now, and have for years, very quietly, that almost exclusively deal with plaintiff lawsuits. A bunch of rich people have gotten together, started companies, and they just go around looking for attractive lawsuits and agree to finance them for a big cut of the award if they win. It only really got news earlier this year but it's been around for a few, but they're really good at staying out of the spotlight. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/01/20/the-next-great-investment-idea-somebody-elses-lawsuit Hell, you can even sign up for it yourself! https://www.lexshares.com/ Let me know if you make any money off it; sounds interesting. Aerox fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:I mean, sure, that's worse by far, sure. I still don't understand what's NEW about the Thiel situation
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Aerox posted:The specific thing I have an issue with is that, assuming that Hogan had actually suffered harm, Hogan was either convinced or paid to pursue a lesser claim, worth probably less money, against his own supposed financial self-interest specifically so that insurance could not cover the lawsuit. That's really the main line crossed to me - when plaintiffs are manipulated by people with money to act against their own self-interest to engage in third-party revenge. if you're already rich enough, making the statement "don't post tapes of me having sex without my consent" is in your self interest
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:A view used by those that sent the poor sods over to get killed. The point is, it doesn't matter if the soldiers would have wanted the publicity or if their families do. The point is that it's news.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:A view used by those that sent the poor sods over to get killed. It's an ethics question that is intentionally open ended, dude. Settledown. Spiritus Nox posted:I mean, sure, that's worse by far, sure. Let me propose something else to you... let's pretend that there was a video of Zoe Quinn admitting to a lover that she really did take bribes to give better reviews or whatever the hell the root cause of gamergate was -- i really don't have a dog in that fight particularly, i am making a hypothetical here -- would be it unethical to report that there is a tape of her admitting all of that and it just also happens to be a sex tape?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Other side of that: look at the GOP and Vilerat's mother using Vilerat's death as a political attack point against Clinton. Unintended consequences are a bitch. Propaganda works for both sides. The one that wins is the one that does it better. GOP are loving that part up as usual. Hiding the costs of war is worse than abusing it imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
iospace posted:Depends on how it's spun. If it's "We won't give you the 400m unless you release the hostages", then no one aside from the right will care. How do you spin this when this was originally announced as a unrelated event completely separate from the release of the prisoners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I still don't understand what's NEW about the Thiel situation It's not new. It's just the first time is been so publicly laid bare. That said, just because it's happened and was condoned in the past does not mean we should turn a blind eye to it in the present, no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:It's not new. It's just the first time is been so publicly laid bare. That said, just because it's happened and was condoned in the past does not mean we should turn a blind eye to it in the present, no? what do you propose as a solution other than bemoaning the downfall of western civilization maybe some kind of means test
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:How do you spin this when this was originally announced as a unrelated event completely separate from the release of the prisoners. this could change, but i haven't seen a single report about it on any other newsite, including fox but the fuller release sort of clarifies: quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department says a $400 million cash payment to Iran was contingent on the release of American prisoners. that's not inconsistent with the earlier claims basically that we were already in process of completing negotiations on the release of the funds, and we used it as an additional carrot on the stick. more or less "we won't release the money as long as you hold our sailors hostage." BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if you're already rich enough, making the statement "don't post tapes of me having sex without my consent" is in your self interest That statement is just as accomplished by a massive jury verdict regardless of whether it comes out of insurance or not than shutting down an entire publication. In fact, a massive verdict that an insurance company has to pay for might even fundamentally change litigation insurance for journalists and policies might start excluding poo poo like "damages that arise from the publication of sex tapes." This is all completely theoretical of course, and maybe companies are already contemplating this as a result of this trial, but shutting Gawker down through a malicious lawsuit has the exact same effect on telling people not to post sex tapes as a nine figure verdict does. A precedent is already set and as a result of this case other publications are going to think very long and hard about doing something similar. I edited the above post to add some stuff just about the civil justice system in general and what civil suits are supposed to be able to accomplish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Let me propose something else to you... let's pretend that there was a video of Zoe Quinn admitting to a lover that she really did take bribes to give better reviews or whatever the hell the root cause of gamergate was -- i really don't have a dog in that fight particularly, i am making a hypothetical here -- would be it unethical to report that there is a tape of her admitting all of that and it just also happens to be a sex tape? Not necessarily. Though with Gawker, wasn't the only vaguely newsworthy bit "Hulk is privately a racist prick" - which, I mean, boo, I guess, but if he's not causing tangible harm to people based on racial bias (hiring practices for example) or making racist statements to a public audience I still don't know if I would consider that worth skirting privacy lines for, whereas with your hypothetical there is actual evidence of illegal activity if I'm not mistaken. Further, Gawker released the tape itself in its context as a sex tape, which provided dubious benefit to a story that seems to me to be only vaguely worthwhile to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
i can't believe that the party that gave us ronald reagan and john mccain suddenly cares about the health of a presidential candidate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:*checks watch* enjoy it while it lasts Time's up! https://twitter.com/adamweinstein/status/766344519575109632 https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/766360997376487427
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Not necessarily. Though with Gawker, wasn't the only vaguely newsworthy bit "Hulk is privately a racist prick" - which, I mean, boo, I guess, but if he's not causing tangible harm to people based on racial bias (hiring practices for example) or making racist statements to a public audience I still don't know if I would consider that worth skirting privacy lines for, whereas with your hypothetical there is actual evidence of illegal activity if I'm not mistaken. Further, Gawker released the tape itself in its context as a sex tape, which provided dubious benefit to a story that seems to me to be only vaguely worthwhile to begin with. Hulk Hogan was one of the major spokepersons for a billion(Multi-Million?) dollar company. He was constantly advertising, promoting things(himself and other businesses) in the public eye. Him being a racist rear end in a top hat is very very very loving newsworthy. Same reason why Those Donald Sterling tapes were newsworthy. Dexo fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:this could change, but i haven't seen a single report about it on any other newsite, including fox The joy of actually reading the article. And now more dirt on the advisors to trump coming out means that MSM is likely going to focus more on that than this (where as RWM will focus on the 400m)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Not necessarily. Though with Gawker, wasn't the only vaguely newsworthy bit "Hulk is privately a racist prick" - which, I mean, boo, I guess, but if he's not causing tangible harm to people based on racial bias (hiring practices for example) or making racist statements to a public audience I still don't know if I would consider that worth skirting privacy lines for, whereas with your hypothetical there is actual evidence of illegal activity if I'm not mistaken. Further, Gawker released the tape itself in its context as a sex tape, which provided dubious benefit to a story that seems to me to be only vaguely worthwhile to begin with. Oh, I don't think Gawker was in the right to be clear. The problem, here again, is that Hogan was coerced by Thiel to take a legal route that promised the most damage to Gawker against his own interests. To put it another way, I am pushing back on claims that public figure doctrine is flawed. If I were an editor at Gawker, I would not have allowed the video to be published.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Time's up! *SLAMS BUTTON*
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
The money was already legally Iran's due to the international tribunal on the fallout of US-Iran relations caused by the overthrow of the Shah, correct? I don't think you can really count giving Iran money that is already theirs from a legal and moral sense a "ransom" even if we did use the timing of the payout as leverage to get the prisoners released. If anything, Iran releasing the prisoners was ransom for the money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:19
|
|