5 ms·
His stated goal, "deterrence," is the exact thing people talk about when they worry about a chilling effect. The fact that people are applauding because it's s
by zardgiv 10y ago
His stated goal, "deterrence," is the exact thing people talk about when they worry about a chilling effect.
The fact that people are applauding because it's someone they disagree with whose ox is getting gored is really disappointing for a community that espouses such strong freedom of speech principles.
- pkinsky 10y agoGawker posted revenge porn, not leaked memos proving the CIA created crack. I don't see this as a particularly slippery slope.
- nicobn 10y agoFreedom of speech does not imply freedom of consequences from speech.
- zardgiv 10y agoI must admit, it is funny seeing the inversion on this from the usual free speech absolutists :)
- pkinsky 10y agoI do enjoy watching people quote one of Gawker's favorite lines back at them.
- zardgiv 10y agoLike I said above, it seems that for a lot of people, the freedom of speech rhetoric just comes down to whose ox is getting gored.
- abiox 10y agoi'm curious, what are you meaning by "freedom of speech"? in what way does releasing sex tapes constitute this?
- ryanlol 10y agoI really don't think you understand what freedom of speech is. Peter Thiel isn't a government entity, but an individual. He by definition cannot do anything to restrict gawkers freedom of speech.
- zardgiv 10y agoTwo ways in which you're wrong here: First, Peter Thiel used the court system, an arm of the government, to pursue a personal vendetta and suppress their speech. Second, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government intervention, but freedom of speech is a concept that exists outside the U.S. Constitution. I hope this clarifies things and helps you better understand the situation.
- ryanlol 10y ago>First, Peter Thiel used the court system, an arm of the government, to pursue a personal vendetta and suppress their speech. No, he merely helped others do so. Whether or not he had a personal vendetta does not affect the validity of the cases. And again, Peter Thiel has every right to do so. As he himself isn't an arm of the government. >Second, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government intervention, but freedom of speech is a concept that exists outside the U.S. Constitution. I just can't find a definition that agrees with you here, it seems to me that it's commonly accepted that freedom of speech is specifically about the right to communicate without fear of government interference. It'd be rather ridiculous if wasn't, would any retaliation from a private person in response to speech be violating ones freedom of speech? Wouldn't that mean that if you insulted me and I responded in kind I'd effectively be suppressing your speech? In any case, I'd appreciate it if you could find a source that supports your position. I'd be very interested to read it.
- int_19h 10y agoThere's a difference between freedom of speech, and freedom to violate privacy of others. I don't have any problem with deterrence - or "chilling effect", if you prefer to word it that way - on the latter. It's unfortunate that it requires a millionaire to fund the court case to get us there; but the only cause for concern here is that someone else might see their privacy similarly violated, and not have a rich sponsor to pay the legal bills for personal reasons.
- uola 10y ago"There's a difference between freedom of speech, and freedom to violate privacy of others." I think that is a very dangerous way to look at thing. The right to privacy is a limitation to freedom of speech. You might think that it's a reasonable limitation in this case, but it's still a limitation and not something different.
- int_19h 10y agoSure, it is a limitation on freedom of speech. Copyright is also a limitation to freedom of speech, as are libel and slander laws. In a society where free speech is absolute, if I have more money than you, I can destroy your reputation, and possibly your entire life, by spreading false information about you, and you would have no recourse. Is that a good thing?
- siddboots 10y agoIf the intended deterrent is simply the cost defending or settling, then you are right, it is no different to a SLAPP suit. However, our legal system holds that even where we have freedom of expression, we still have a responsibility to not invade people's privacy, and not cause them emotional harm. A court found that Gawker didn't act according to those responsibilities, so they owed damages. That's exactly the kind of deterrence that our civil law is designed to provide.
- zardgiv 10y agoFrom the article, the reason we know that Thiel was funding this in the first place: "[...] an unusual decision Mr. Bollea’s legal team made: It purposely excluded a claim that would have allowed Gawker’s insurance company to help pay for its defense as well as damages." That speaks quite loudly to the intent of the deterrent, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned who was paying, since insurance company money is just as green as Gawker's.
- flashman 10y agoGood; there SHOULD be a chilling effect on publishing private material of the sort being litigated. There's a difference between 'what the public is interested in' and 'the public interest'.
- mikeyouse 10y agoSo if it were a Donald Trump sex tape rather than a hulk Hogan one, should airing under a minute of it cost the NYTimes $150M?
- sanxiyn 10y agoYes.
- mikeyouse 10y agoThat is a terrifying mentality. Should Romney have been able to sue about his 47% comments? Why is everyone so content to march into fascism?
- ryanlol 10y agoHow is that supposed to be at all comparable? Publishing a sex tape is completely different than writing about it.
- robbiemitchell 10y agoRomney could sue, but he would lose. You can sue any time you want. That's how the US legal system works.
- EdiX 10y agoYes? Unless there was something newsworthy...
- nemothekid 10y agoOnly if NYT was issued a legitimate takedown, and then NYT told Trump to fuck off.