6 ms·
As long as we're quoting someone with an obvious vested interest, how do you feel about what Gawker points to: "Hillary Clinton’s secret email account, Bill Co
by zardgiv 10y ago
As long as we're quoting someone with an obvious vested interest, how do you feel about what Gawker points to:
"Hillary Clinton’s secret email account, Bill Cosby’s history with women, the mayor of Toronto as a crack smoker, Tom Cruise’s role within Scientology, the N.F.L. cover-up of domestic abuse by players and just this month the hidden power of Facebook to determine the news you see.”
It's not so cut and dry, which is why people are rightfully worried about a billionaire's personal vendetta to destroy a press organization?
- greatnorthz 10y agoIn the absence of a regulator, something needs to keep the 'press' in check.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y agoJust because they published things that have been good journalism allows them carte blanche to publish things that break the law and are morally reprehensible? I find this logic baffling.
- zardgiv 10y agoI was directly replying to the comment that "They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose." Actually reading the context would make the logic much less baffling.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y agoOkay, your argument then seems to be "They do have a moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose some of the time but the rest of the time they break the law". That's not much improvement, I would think.
- zardgiv 10y agoI don't feel like you're really trying to engage critically here.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y agoThe feeling is mutual, sir.
- nikcub 10y agoI find the logic that freedom of speech only applies to journalism you agree with baffling. It's straight out of the 21st century authoritarians playbook - nobody is dumb enough to admit that their actions are against the principles of freedom, but people are dumb enough to agree with those same actions when you simply redefine who those principles apply to. It's the new-newspeak, see how Putin has as much power as any Soviet leader but with the veneer of democracy, popular support and individual freedom.
- robbiemitchell 10y agoJust to be clear, the freedom of speech is not absolute. It _is_ possible to violate someone else's First Amendment rights while exercising your own, to the point where a judge or jury must decide who is at fault (if anyone) and why. The limits to free speech have been shaped over time by laws and by precedent. In this case, a jury found that Gawker went too far.
- Shivetya 10y agothe sex tape was reprehensible but outing? Aren't we like ten to twenty years past that point? Its not really different than the press publishing cheating stories these days.
- robbiemitchell 10y ago> Aren't we like ten ... years past that point? Not actually debating the merits of outing a public figure, but regarding your timeline, this was 2007, or 9 years ago, so it's possible that no, we were not past "that point" at that point. However you are defining that point.
- Natsu 10y ago> It's not so cut and dry, which is why people are rightfully worried about a billionaire's personal vendetta to destroy a press organization? He can't do a single thing to them unless they break the law.
- whatok 10y agoHow many of these were things Gawker originally sourced and how many of them were things that they quoted a few paragraphs and added a snarky/self-righteous sentence or two to?
- internaut 10y agoI thought I'd look those up to see who got the scoop. Hillary Clinton’s secret email account: New York Times Bill Cosby’s history with women: National Enquirer The mayor of Toronto as a crack smoker: Gawker Tom Cruise’s role within Scientology: Gawker N.F.L. cover-up of domestic abuse: ESPN Hidden power of Facebook to determine the news: Gawker