3 ms·
> This is another one of those situations you can excuse away through specific context (Valleywag did plenty of crappy things) No, that is the broader context.
by Goladus 10y ago
> This is another one of those situations you can excuse away through specific context (Valleywag did plenty of crappy things)
No, that is the broader context. Gawker being allowed to flagrantly abuse their first amendment rights to invade privacy for clicks is the broader context. They're the ones setting the precedent. If you truly care about the free exchange of ideas then you know that Gawker is the enemy. Someone had to stop them. The longer the system let them run amok violating every journalistic standard that ever existed, the worse the correction was going to be in the end. Precedent-wise, it could have been far, far worse.
- zardgiv 10y agoThey were "abusing their freedom of speech rights?" That's a pretty narrow view of freedom of speech. Unsurprising, though, since it's an organization you disagree with. But I hope I'm not abusing my first amendment rights here...
- Goladus 10y ago> I hope I'm not abusing my first amendment rights here... You aren't posting a sex tape of me without my permission, right? I consider willful defamation to be an abuse of free speech rights, yes. Here is an example: https://archive.is/sGKOF https://archive.is/sGKOF Biddle is protected either because he never technically lies or because Temkin might be considered a "Public Figure." But either way, Biddle's article is written explicitly to persuade a reader that Temkin is guilty of a specific crime in reckless disregard for the truth, and a significant amount of Temkin's status as a public figure derives from the accusation itself. > since it's an organization you disagree with In a world where media lies with moral hazard, individuals will have no choice but to pick sides. But speaking of that, what's your opinion on the Jennifer Lawrence nudes? Is that free speech?