4 ms·

http://i.imgur.com/J8DisIr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/J8DisIr.jpg

by ousta 10y ago

smoyer 10y ago
These remind me of the tabloids I see in the supermarket aisle - There might be some shred of truth there ("W" Bush meeting with aliens might explain a lot) but mostly its the same hyped up headlines and empty content as we see with these "10 things ..." publishers.
- yarou 10y ago
  They have to monetize somehow, I suppose, though it happens to be very scummy. As deplorable as Gawker is, and I do not in any way condone their actions (personally, I think their reporting is tabloid tier garbage), it is vital that we have a functioning free press that can publish unpopular viewpoints. Even if what's being published is distasteful, racist, or alarming.
  - mox1 10y ago
    As far as I am aware, no state or federal authorities are involved here, so freedom of the press is still intact. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want. Additionally, at what point does "very scummy" become a civil offense? Why not ask a judge (and/or jury) and let them decide.
    - yarou 10y ago
      > Additionally, at what point does "very scummy" become a civil offense? Why not ask a judge (and/or jury) and let them decide. Because the criteria for that changes arbitrarily based on the zeitgeist of a particular era. For example, pornography was considered by many to be "very scummy" at the turn of the century. Many religious groups tried to stop its publishing and sale, yet here we are today. Thiel is well within his rights to file a civil suit, but it could lead to a dangerous precedent that restricts the First Amendment as the founding fathers envisioned it. A better counterargument would be to bring up Citizens United, and how it has abused the safeguards of the First Amendment to do scummy things that are several orders of magnitude more than publishing some celebrity's sex tape.
      - Artistry121 10y ago
        Ok. Then let's target CU. But this isn't CU. The first amendment doesn't cover lying or making people's lives miserable when it doesn't serve a social good. The founding fathers wrote the alien and sedition acts. The illegality of revealing government search requests causing chilling effects and propoganda pieces by the US military and other high ranking officials is actually a violation. Taking someone to open court isn't.
      - coredog64 10y ago
        The First Amendment says the cops won't bust down your door for saying something. It has exactly zero bearing on whether or not that same speech results in you being unemployed or unemployable, having your romantic partner leave you, or being shunned by greater society. As for Citizens United, you do realize that before the decision affirmed it that corporations were understood to have 1A rights? What has people upset is that the "wrong" kind of corporations have those rights. It was okay when it was friendly media companies, unions, or non-profits with the correct ideology. But let some chunk of people with extreme Clinton Derangement Syndrome band together and "whoah Nellie!"?
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      While in theory that may be true, in practice, if a sufficiently deep-pocketed person can shut down media outlets they dislike it still seems troubling.
  - smoyer 10y ago
    I'm not arguing against a free press, and I agree that it would be terrible if this was happening to real journalists. But ... in this case, Gawker caused damage to a person, but could be sued for libel because it was true. If you're going to fight dirty, you should be prepared for your opponent to fight back dirty. You also have to question whether the main-stream media (which is tentatively hanging on to a business model), isn't already controlled by rich individuals. This article's main thrust was that we don't want a world where the media is constrained by the rich using the legal system, but the rich already constrain the media economically.
    - yarou 10y ago
      Define real journalist.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      These are the same not-real journalists who broke the Facebook stories everyone was talking about for the past two weeks, though. Seems like an odd claim.
emodendroket 10y ago
I think it'd be fair to point out there seems to be a huge shift in attitudes toward this stuff. Compare the reaction to the Pamela Anderson videos to the reaction to the iCloud leaks.

http://i.imgur.com/J8DisIr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/J8DisIr.jpg

by ousta 10y ago

http://i.imgur.com/J8DisIr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/J8DisIr.jpg

These remind me of the tabloids I see in the supermarket aisle - There might be some shred of truth there ("W" Bush meeting with aliens might explain a lot) but mostly its the same hyped up headlines and empty content as we see with these "10 things ..." publishers.

yarou 10y ago
They have to monetize somehow, I suppose, though it happens to be very scummy. As deplorable as Gawker is, and I do not in any way condone their actions (personally, I think their reporting is tabloid tier garbage), it is vital that we have a functioning free press that can publish unpopular viewpoints. Even if what's being published is distasteful, racist, or alarming.
- mox1 10y ago
  As far as I am aware, no state or federal authorities are involved here, so freedom of the press is still intact. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want. Additionally, at what point does "very scummy" become a civil offense? Why not ask a judge (and/or jury) and let them decide.
  - yarou 10y ago
    > Additionally, at what point does "very scummy" become a civil offense? Why not ask a judge (and/or jury) and let them decide. Because the criteria for that changes arbitrarily based on the zeitgeist of a particular era. For example, pornography was considered by many to be "very scummy" at the turn of the century. Many religious groups tried to stop its publishing and sale, yet here we are today. Thiel is well within his rights to file a civil suit, but it could lead to a dangerous precedent that restricts the First Amendment as the founding fathers envisioned it. A better counterargument would be to bring up Citizens United, and how it has abused the safeguards of the First Amendment to do scummy things that are several orders of magnitude more than publishing some celebrity's sex tape.
    - Artistry121 10y ago
      Ok. Then let's target CU. But this isn't CU. The first amendment doesn't cover lying or making people's lives miserable when it doesn't serve a social good. The founding fathers wrote the alien and sedition acts. The illegality of revealing government search requests causing chilling effects and propoganda pieces by the US military and other high ranking officials is actually a violation. Taking someone to open court isn't.
    - coredog64 10y ago
      The First Amendment says the cops won't bust down your door for saying something. It has exactly zero bearing on whether or not that same speech results in you being unemployed or unemployable, having your romantic partner leave you, or being shunned by greater society. As for Citizens United, you do realize that before the decision affirmed it that corporations were understood to have 1A rights? What has people upset is that the "wrong" kind of corporations have those rights. It was okay when it was friendly media companies, unions, or non-profits with the correct ideology. But let some chunk of people with extreme Clinton Derangement Syndrome band together and "whoah Nellie!"?
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    While in theory that may be true, in practice, if a sufficiently deep-pocketed person can shut down media outlets they dislike it still seems troubling.
- smoyer 10y ago
  I'm not arguing against a free press, and I agree that it would be terrible if this was happening to real journalists. But ... in this case, Gawker caused damage to a person, but could be sued for libel because it was true. If you're going to fight dirty, you should be prepared for your opponent to fight back dirty. You also have to question whether the main-stream media (which is tentatively hanging on to a business model), isn't already controlled by rich individuals. This article's main thrust was that we don't want a world where the media is constrained by the rich using the legal system, but the rich already constrain the media economically.
  - yarou 10y ago
    Define real journalist.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    These are the same not-real journalists who broke the Facebook stories everyone was talking about for the past two weeks, though. Seems like an odd claim.

emodendroket 10y ago

I think it'd be fair to point out there seems to be a huge shift in attitudes toward this stuff. Compare the reaction to the Pamela Anderson videos to the reaction to the iCloud leaks.