4 ms·

While I agree with your points you're kind of missing the bigger one. Lots of media outlets break the law. The problem here is that one company who broke the la

While I agree with your points you're kind of missing the bigger one. Lots of media outlets break the law. The problem here is that one company who broke the law got punished by a billionaire because they were kinda mean to him. To me this is very bizarre.

Artistry121 10y ago
It seems good to me. Peter Thiel did a public service. Lawbreakers were punished without tax payer dollars because they did the wrong thing. It's how the system is supposed to work and an impartial judge found in favor.
- ryguytilidie 10y ago
  Right, but my point is that there are a lot of lawbreakers who will not be punished at all because they were not "not nice" to a billionaire. I guess I'm in favor of "all companies breaking the law should be punished" versus "billionaires should selectively bankroll cases against companies that broke the law if that company isnt nice to them". I think people aren't seeing the bigger picture here.
DasIch 10y ago
It doesn't matter how many media outlets break the law. If the law is bad, it should be changed but if it isn't and the media outlets break the law, they should be held accountable.
lhnz 10y ago
Sure, it's bizarre that justice has to happen this way. But you can't honestly think a big media company like Gawker should be allowed to break the law and humiliate others just because their money protects them from their victim's getting any justice?
- ryguytilidie 10y ago
  "But you can't honestly think a big media company like Gawker should be allowed to break the law and humiliate others just because their money protects them from their victim's getting any justice?" I don't believe that at all. I just find it really troubling that Gawker (who deserved to be brought to justice) was only brought to justice because they were kind of mean to a billionaire once and because of this that billionaire bankrolled a lawsuit against them. Kind of shitty that "justice" comes at the will of spiteful billionaires is all I'm saying. OF COURSE Gawker deserved everything they got. No argument there.

Artistry121 10y ago

It seems good to me. Peter Thiel did a public service. Lawbreakers were punished without tax payer dollars because they did the wrong thing. It's how the system is supposed to work and an impartial judge found in favor.

ryguytilidie 10y ago
Right, but my point is that there are a lot of lawbreakers who will not be punished at all because they were not "not nice" to a billionaire. I guess I'm in favor of "all companies breaking the law should be punished" versus "billionaires should selectively bankroll cases against companies that broke the law if that company isnt nice to them". I think people aren't seeing the bigger picture here.

DasIch 10y ago

It doesn't matter how many media outlets break the law. If the law is bad, it should be changed but if it isn't and the media outlets break the law, they should be held accountable.

lhnz 10y ago

Sure, it's bizarre that justice has to happen this way. But you can't honestly think a big media company like Gawker should be allowed to break the law and humiliate others just because their money protects them from their victim's getting any justice?

ryguytilidie 10y ago
"But you can't honestly think a big media company like Gawker should be allowed to break the law and humiliate others just because their money protects them from their victim's getting any justice?" I don't believe that at all. I just find it really troubling that Gawker (who deserved to be brought to justice) was only brought to justice because they were kind of mean to a billionaire once and because of this that billionaire bankrolled a lawsuit against them. Kind of shitty that "justice" comes at the will of spiteful billionaires is all I'm saying. OF COURSE Gawker deserved everything they got. No argument there.