4 ms·

So I don't really agree with Thiel here. But fundamentally, the issue here isn't Thiel. It's the laws he is exploiting to muzzle truthful speech by Gawker [1].

So I don't really agree with Thiel here. But fundamentally, the issue here isn't Thiel. It's the laws he is exploiting to muzzle truthful speech by Gawker [1]. We've had a variety of laws created to protect Jennifer Lawrence and other sympathetic females. Those laws would also have protected Carlos Danger, had they been in force when he was tweeting dick pics. Those laws are a danger to our society. Me on the topic, a few years ago: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moo... That said, this is a very interesting article. It's definitely bringing up an interesting issue, that centralized manipulation of public opinion (and hence democracy) is becoming easier - definitely one of the many flaws with democracy, I'd say. The willingness of the public to participate in cathedral-instigated lynch mobs of this sort is also troubling. I wish I could think of a good way forward. [1] I never thought I'd be the one defending Gawker. I want them to die. But I'm more afraid of laws stifling free speech than Gawker, although watching Gawker in action has made me become more afraid of free speech than I was before.

Artistry121 10y ago
This isn't a new law. There are no new laws being made here. This is a good application of a law. If there is a bad application of a law then protest the law. Pragmatism is the only short term solution and Thiel acted pragmatically. I am glad that a precedent has been affirmed that leaking video of my private actions and spending ad dollars to share it would be punishable by law.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  This is an application of anti-revenge porn laws which were made around the time I wrote my blog post. I should have been clearer. I'm generally very suspicious of pragmatism - it's very often a cheap excuse to do whatever makes us feel good or seems convenient at the time. I totally understand that instinct, particularly in this case. I think Thiel is awesome (I generally want Thiel to be our reigning monarch) and I absolutely detest Gawker and think organizations like it (together with their public enablers) are one of the most dangerous social forces in our society. It's just that on principle, I'm really unable to convince myself that this is the right thing.

Artistry121 10y ago

This isn't a new law. There are no new laws being made here. This is a good application of a law. If there is a bad application of a law then protest the law. Pragmatism is the only short term solution and Thiel acted pragmatically. I am glad that a precedent has been affirmed that leaking video of my private actions and spending ad dollars to share it would be punishable by law.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
This is an application of anti-revenge porn laws which were made around the time I wrote my blog post. I should have been clearer. I'm generally very suspicious of pragmatism - it's very often a cheap excuse to do whatever makes us feel good or seems convenient at the time. I totally understand that instinct, particularly in this case. I think Thiel is awesome (I generally want Thiel to be our reigning monarch) and I absolutely detest Gawker and think organizations like it (together with their public enablers) are one of the most dangerous social forces in our society. It's just that on principle, I'm really unable to convince myself that this is the right thing.