4 ms·
"Later asked by an attorney for Hogan if there was a situation in which a celebrity sex tape might not be newsworthy, Delaurio responded: “If they were a child.
by Jun8 10y ago
"Later asked by an attorney for Hogan if there was a situation in which a celebrity sex tape might not be newsworthy, Delaurio responded: “If they were a child.”
The attorney then asked him to specify: a child under what age? Daulerio responded: “Four.”"
This was the Gawker editor who came up with the sex tape and story. This sums up the the anything goes interpretation of free speech these people have. (Although he later said he was being flippant, that's even worse in exposing his infantile psychology).
OTOH, Thiel's ruthless use of the suing machine also leaves a bitter taste. This is a case where it's hard to totally root for either side.
- mkawia 10y agoYeah ,There are no good guys here. Criticizing Thiel shouldn't be confused with supporting Gawker , because we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next
- strangecasts 10y agoYeah, it scares me that people are accepting this as "philanthropy" uncritically.
- Kristine1975 10y agoFWIW I would never have considered Thiel's actions to be philanthropy. Which is why I was so confused when reading the headline "Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy."
- TillE 10y ago> we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next Thiel didn't "punish" anyone. Gawker broke the law, and he helped hold them to account via the legal system. I don't like Thiel one tiny bit. He's a weirdo. But this is, like, the least bad thing a billionaire has ever done to infringe on "free speech". Hypothetically abusing the legal system (eg, many frivolous lawsuits) would be bad, but he hasn't actually done that.
- narrowrail 10y ago>Gawker broke the law This may seem pedantic, but Gawker didn't break the law. This is a civil case. >He's a weirdo. I don't know what to make of this, and it adds nothing to the discussion.
- dragonwriter 10y agoCivil cases involve breaking the law, too. You seem to make the error of thinking the law is limited to criminal law; but this is incorrect. So, the problem isn't that you're being pedantic, it's just that you're plain wrong.
- linhchi 10y agoForget about the greater cause, Gawker messes with the wrong guy. i agree w this comment on twitter: Let's say that Thiel & Gawker is a match made in heaven.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y agoI dunno, I don't see this as any different than when someone gets donations to their legal fund from supporters, or really what the ACLU, EFF, NAACP, etc., do with their legal programs.
- jonathankoren 10y agoIt's different because the the organizations you cite do so publically. Thiel is doing it secretly to try to keep his hands clean. That's disturbing. Also the organizations you cite are actually working for the public good, while Thiel is working from a petty personal vendetta.
- internaut 10y agoSo a justice system is a public good. It contains people who are trying to sue. That counts as a personal vendetta, only arbitrated by the courts. Your juxtaposition of 'private interest' vs 'public interest' needs work. Evidently they can both be aligned.