|
CommieGIR posted:
 Paying damages for breaking the law is the death penalty now?
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
fade5 posted:Direct him to a map of just how much territory ISIS has lost in the last 2 years. Every new terrorist attack is an example of Obama being a failure despite ISIS losing territory and getting more desperate as a result. It's like arguing with someone who unironically claims global warming is a hoax because it's really cold outside. He also thinks that there are already ISIS sleeper cells in every state because of some random breitbart or newsmax article he read. These people can't be reasoned with because they don't start from a position of reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
can I say I'm glad Gawker died without wanting to herald the end of rich people getting their dumb bullshit aired out so they have to be accountable at least in some way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Paying damages for breaking the law is the death penalty now? [/quote] they got exactly what they deserved. as someone else said in another thread, Gawker went after people as its primary purpose, and it showed no regard for who or what it ultimately destroyed in its quest to generate clicks and ad revenue. They had this insane vendetta against essentially everyone. I'm hoping that their fall has a chilling effect on any other predatory outlets that may have ideas to taking the now vacant throne.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:they got exactly what they deserved. as someone else said in another thread, Gawker went after people as its primary purpose, and it showed no regard for who or what it ultimately destroyed in its quest to generate clicks and ad revenue. They had this insane vendetta against essentially everyone. I'm hoping that their fall has a chilling effect on any other predatory outlets that may have ideas to taking the now vacant throne. You're an idiot if you let your dislike of gawker blind you to the chilling ramifications this has for the free press as we know it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Pander posted:You're an idiot if you let your dislike of gawker blind you to the chilling ramifications this has for the free press as we know it. well i guess we have to live in a world now where angry billionaires will take awful tabloid rags to the mat and destroy them, i guess  either that or gee it's a shame peter thiel's goons managed to hack into gawker's server and post revenge porn of a washed up celebrity and managed against all odds to prevent it from being removed contrary to nick denton's editorial guidelines
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
The article is dumb because the author is conflating nuisance lawsuits with actual privacy violations. If there's evidence nuisance lawsuits are silencing the press then let's talk about that, not use it as a shield for committing crimes like the author is trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:well i guess we have to live in a world now where angry billionaires will take awful tabloid rags to the mat and destroy them, i guess Thiel going out of his way to legally knife gently caress them to death? Bad. Them being slapped the hell down for the whole revenge porn bullshit? Good. Nuance. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Thiel going out of his way to legally knife gently caress them to death? Bad. By "revenge porn bullshit" you of course mean how you literally just made up bullshit about revenge porn that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Is there a good (preferably not too emotional and snarky) article about Milo that's up to date about his more recent charming escapades? A good friend has, to my despair, posted some video of Milo's about how FBI statistics prove that black people lie about being persecuted (I assume, I can't watch alt-right videos without throwing up everywhere) and I want to assume that he's just naive about the alt-right movement. I expect any replies to him to spark a garstly discussion with another FB (not so much real life) friend who openly follows jokesters like Sargon and Milo and generally seems way into kool-aid, but that's a risk I have to take I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Maybe you can also go directly to the support and look at the FBI data yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
The source you mean? Once I get back from work I might, but it's less about the particular video and more about letting my friend know that seeing him post Milo stuff without intent to mock is like seeing him post articles by Thilo Sarazzin or Jan Fleischhauer (we're German, so for context: I think the latter's last editorial was going on about "heterophobia" or some such nonsense). He's fairly leftist but sometimes a bit gullible, so maybe he assumes people like Milo are independent thinkers with no stupid agenda?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Rushputin posted:The source you mean? Once I get back from work I might, but it's less about the particular video and more about letting my friend know that seeing him post Milo stuff without intent to mock is like seeing him post articles by Thilo Sarazzin or Jan Fleischhauer (we're German, so for context: I think the latter's last editorial was going on about "heterophobia" or some such nonsense). I've seen otherwise left-ish people fall for some alt-right concern trolling because they think it makes them some kind of special political snowflake to be contrarian and rail against the imaginary cabal of Tumblr progressives or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:well i guess we have to live in a world now where angry billionaires will take awful tabloid rags to the mat and destroy them, i guess Yes, and I actually do dislike that. You don't get to shut people up just because you think they're bad if it will have a chilling effect on other journalists. Maybe we can agree that there should be a way to do these things without producing a chilling effect?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Having a chilling effect on people violating others' privacy is a good thing, that's why we passed laws protecting privacy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Having a chilling effect on people violating others' privacy is a good thing, that's why we passed laws protecting privacy. I agree, I just don't think the collateral damage here is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Yes, and I actually do dislike that. You don't get to shut people up just because you think they're bad if it will have a chilling effect on other journalists. Maybe we can agree that there should be a way to do these things without producing a chilling effect? This might be a valid point if they did actual journalism and not just paparazzi clickbait bullshit. Digging up a few actual facts in between mountains of reactionary garbage does not actually contribute much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:This might be a valid point if they did actual journalism and not just paparazzi clickbait bullshit. Then I wasn't clear, sorry--I think it's irrelevant whether any of us thinks Gawker did real journalism or not (I think they didn't, really but I don't think anyone should give a poo poo). I think people's opinions about the quality of Gawker's work won't really stop this case from encouraging damaging, bad-faith lawsuits, which are expensive to deal with even if you haven't done anything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Then I wasn't clear, sorry--I think it's irrelevant whether any of us thinks Gawker did real journalism or not (I think they didn't, really but I don't think anyone should give a poo poo). I think people's opinions about the quality of Gawker's work won't really stop this case from encouraging damaging, bad-faith lawsuits, which are expensive to deal with even if you haven't done anything wrong. This is why there is a big push gor anti-SLAPP legislation. It has been a problem for many years now but I suggest people don't die on the particular hill of Gawker who, frankly, handed Thiel the rope to hang them with. This is a huge problem and will encourage more but this is a long standing problem. Gawker were awful though and deserved being hosed. Lawsuits being increasingly a domain for the rich only is kinda a tangential issue here imo. Something that desperately needs sorting out but Gawker and related indiscriminate dirt-diggers also needed sorting out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
Levantine posted:I dunno, part of Trump's "charm" to these people is how unfiltered he is, and by extension, how it allows them to be unfiltered too. I can't imagine there are too many hidden Trump supporters. The lure of being loud is too seductive. I found that there's always an undertow of people agreeing with loud racists, but not wanting to vote for them because they also think they're crass and uncouth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I caught a bit of Hannity today while I was out, and it was just him ranting about how he ended a friendship with somebody because they said they didn't want to talk about Trump, which means it was a fake, "superficial" friendship, ending with him telling the guy "If Clinton wins, you own this! It's YOUR fault!" I've never heard of a friendship ending because someone refused to talk politics. He also apparently had a urologist (or grastrologist) on his show that diagnosed Hillary's "medical problems" just by looking at pictures of her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:He also apparently had a urologist (or grastrologist) on his show that diagnosed Hillary's "medical problems" just by looking at pictures of her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Lawyer: Well, can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy? AJ Daulerio: If they were a child. Lawyer: Under what age? AJ Daulerio: Four. How could such a great news organization like Gawker get shut down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Saying "It's good that gawker got taken down because there SHOULD be a chilling effect on bad journalism and privacy violations" is living in a dream world. It's like how when black people gather to protest they get tear gassed by cops in riot gear but when white supremacists gather to protest the cops act as their bodyguards. James O'keefe destroyed a major organization based entirely on lies, and tried to destroy others based on lies, and tried to wiretap a senator, and faced effectively zero consequences. There's a pattern to this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:Lawyer: Well, can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy? I know you're not going to read it, but I'll put it here so that other people can: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/legacy-of-snark-why-gawker-mattered-w435504
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:Lawyer: Well, can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy? Good thing he no longer actually worked at Gawker. Also while he shouldn't have been sarcastic in a deposition, come on It's fairly loving obvious they wouldn't loving post a video that would net them a loving child porn charge. quote:“When you’re being peppered with stupidly precise questions for eight hours, over what I considered basically a nonsense and completely ludicrous formal loving deposition over something we had already won, I reacted,” Daulerio said about his ill-judged quip. Dexo fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:My father had a bizarre theory in regards to Trump. If this was true, though, then you would have seen it pop up in the Republican primary polls vs. the results; he was still pretty extreme and explicit compared to the dog whistling of other primary candidates, after all. A smaller effect, maybe, but there would still have been something. But the primary polling when taken as a whole didn't show even a slight trend of underestimating Trump when compared to the primary election results.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:Lawyer: Well, can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy? I'd say celebrity sex tape involving a child would be newsworthy, even worth investigating. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:I'd say celebrity sex tape involving a child would be newsworthy, even worth investigating. shouts to R Kelly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
The New York Times posted faulty intelligence that helped lead to the Iraq war. They're still around. The Daily Beast just posted an article that tried to out a bunch of gay Olympians. They removed the article, and are still going about their business. Gawker outed a crappy gay billionaire who was already known to be out in silicon valley, and posted a Hulk Hogan sex video that two courts twice said could stay up because it was protected speech, but everyone is happy that they went down. The $150 million settlement is 10 times as much money that a wrongful death suit gets, and Peter Thiel and his lawyers set it up so that the journalism insurance Gawker has couldn't cover the fees. News / media outlets are allowed to get it wrong once in awhile, which is why journalism insurance is a thing. Also, to anyone that said Gawker didn't do good journalism needs to remember this story: http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Breitbart has been reporting blatant lies about Planned Parenthood for quite a while which are indirectly responsible for deaths when clinics have to close due to funding cuts or right wing maniacs start committing terrorism. Where's our billionaire hero to sue them into non-existence since that's the check on bad journalism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Our billionaire heroes exist nowhere except for the paranoid delusions of conservatives. See: George Soros
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
That's what you thing while I'm cashing my check for posting on liberal forum D&D on somethingawful.com.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:News / media outlets are allowed to get it wrong once in awhile, which is why journalism insurance is a thing. Posting a sex tape is not a "whoopsie" like citing an incorrect source or getting your research wrong. There is a very easy way to report a story about "Hulk Hogan makes racist remarks" without actually airing video of him having sex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
They hosed up, no one is saying they didn't gently caress up. I'm fine with Hogan getting whatever damages. Not fine with a targeted attack solely to close a news org.
Dexo fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Sure, if Hogan wants punitive damage because a blurry image of his penis showed up in night camera, go for it. That's not $150million worthy of damages, when as I said, a wrongful death suit nets a family $15mil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
They purposefully structured the lawsuit so that Hogan didn't get as much in damages but Gawker's insurance didn't cover them, and they filed it in Florida just so that the damages have to be ponied up in escrow even though the case is in appeal. It's the lawsuit equivalent of a smart bomb. It wasn't about getting justice for Hogan but about destroying Gawker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Hogan lives in Florida, so I'm not sure where this weird "they filed it in Florida!" talking point comes from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Gawker is in NY.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
I notice that all the people who don't think there is a problem here want to talk about how bad Gawker is/was, not the underlying problem of billionaires having the ability to silence media foes and chill any future investigation into their activities. For some reason, these same people never talk about the Mother Jones situation, and how close a call that was (and it's not over yet). This is the problem - if they can do it to Gawker by manipulating the legal system, they can do it to ANYONE. and no, as awful as Gawker was, exposure of Hulk Hogan's wrinkly dick is not worth 150 million bucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 19:24
|
|
