5 ms·

What exactly is the broader precedent here? That media outlets shouldn't collaborate with sexual predators for profit? If Gawker is allowed to do this then why

by s_m_t 10y ago

What exactly is the broader precedent here? That media outlets shouldn't collaborate with sexual predators for profit? If Gawker is allowed to do this then why shouldn't they be allowed to pay for a similar tape? Hell, if it's fair game they should be able to pay in advance. They could even have sexual predators on retainer :)

untog 10y ago
I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack a media organisation he doesn't like. Like I said, you can look at the specifics, like the sexual nature of this particular case, and make a judgement based on that, but I'm personally very wary of doing so. Especially when it involves sex, which is not an area any of us are particularly rational with.
- xviia 10y ago
  I hate when people use the specifics! For instance, I was saying that the police shouldn't be allowed to arrest people. In fact, the state has no right to jail anyone. Then, somebody came along and said, "In this case, they proved that he had murdered that person. And the murderer confessed on camera, too! In that case the state should be allowed to jail them." And I was like, "What are you doing there, using specifics? My point is that, in general, the state shouldn't be allowed to jail anyone! Especially in general cases of murder, which few of us are familiar with."
  - untog 10y ago
    Sigh. There's relying on specifics, and there is abstracting ideas to such a broad point that the entire debate is meaningless. You and I both know there is a middle ground. EDIT: eugh, forget it. I dislike how argumentative I end up being on HN. Such a waste of productive time. Overdue adding an entry to my hosts file...
- Goladus 10y ago
  > I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack a media organisation he doesn't like. I get your point. That is a valid broader context, but as I wrote above it is not the only one. Gawker is a media organization that gets away with attacking anyone whenever they want for any motive at all and are shielded from consequences by hiding behind their status as a "media organization" despite having no journalistic standards to speak of. Which is worse, media organizations abusing people without the means or resources to fight back, or billionaires funding lawsuits against media organizations? You're imagining the danger of a billionaire with a personal vendetta against Gawker. I'm imagining staff writers at Gawker on power trips publishing hit pieces that barely toe the line of libel and getting normal people fired for clicks.

by s_m_t 10y ago

untog 10y ago

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack a media organisation he doesn't like. Like I said, you can look at the specifics, like the sexual nature of this particular case, and make a judgement based on that, but I'm personally very wary of doing so. Especially when it involves sex, which is not an area any of us are particularly rational with.

xviia 10y ago
I hate when people use the specifics! For instance, I was saying that the police shouldn't be allowed to arrest people. In fact, the state has no right to jail anyone. Then, somebody came along and said, "In this case, they proved that he had murdered that person. And the murderer confessed on camera, too! In that case the state should be allowed to jail them." And I was like, "What are you doing there, using specifics? My point is that, in general, the state shouldn't be allowed to jail anyone! Especially in general cases of murder, which few of us are familiar with."
- untog 10y ago
  Sigh. There's relying on specifics, and there is abstracting ideas to such a broad point that the entire debate is meaningless. You and I both know there is a middle ground. EDIT: eugh, forget it. I dislike how argumentative I end up being on HN. Such a waste of productive time. Overdue adding an entry to my hosts file...
Goladus 10y ago
> I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack a media organisation he doesn't like. I get your point. That is a valid broader context, but as I wrote above it is not the only one. Gawker is a media organization that gets away with attacking anyone whenever they want for any motive at all and are shielded from consequences by hiding behind their status as a "media organization" despite having no journalistic standards to speak of. Which is worse, media organizations abusing people without the means or resources to fight back, or billionaires funding lawsuits against media organizations? You're imagining the danger of a billionaire with a personal vendetta against Gawker. I'm imagining staff writers at Gawker on power trips publishing hit pieces that barely toe the line of libel and getting normal people fired for clicks.