4 ms·

Who said deference to those in power? I would hope a free press has the respect not to invade the privacy of private citizens. Do you honestly think the video

by Teeboo 10y ago

Who said deference to those in power? I would hope a free press has the respect not to invade the privacy of private citizens. Do you honestly think the videotape of the sexual exploits of a private citizen is somehow worthy of protection under freedom of the press? Not to mention the tape was illegally procured and Gawker continued to act in flagrant violation of the court ordered redactions. You hear deference and you immediately go to despot or dictator. The truth is, the press is far more damaging to private citizens than it has ever been to the establishment. You show me one piece of great investigative journalism and I will show you 10 celebrity reporters lying in the gutters getting upskirt shots of a teen celebrity. Team Thiel until they learn not to hack voicemails and generally become decent members of society.

lotso 10y ago
How can you be Team Thiel and have these opinions when Thiel financially supported the person who made the acorn videos? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe
- Teeboo 10y ago
  Source for Thiel's involvement? Cannot find any reference to Thiel in the associated articles. A better question might be, if you are against Thiel in the matter of Hogan v Gawker; what thinking has led you to a defence of the Gawker behaviour?
  - lotso 10y ago
    >http://www.villagevoice.com/news/conservative-facebook-investor-funded-anti-acorn-videographer-6687024 http://www.villagevoice.com/news/conservative-facebook-inves... Look, I agree Gawker crosses the line time to time and is seen as a garbage blog by many people. What's worrisome to me is that Thiel has orchestrated a shadow campaign based on what to me seems like personal revenge than actually wanting to right a wrong or to discourage unethical behavior.
AlexandrB 10y ago
> Who said deference to those in power? You didn't specify who the press is supposed to defer to. So the obvious assumption is "everybody including those in power", especially since we're talking about Peter Thiel who has a not insignificant amount of power due to his wealth. I don't understand why you keep bringing up the News International voicemail hack which has nothing to do with Gawker and was almost universally condemned because it targeted victims and those with almost no power. The actions[1] of the Bollea legal team make it clear that this isn't about getting justice for Hulk Hogan, but about destroying Gawker. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th... "Speculation that a secret benefactor was backing Mr. Bollea’s case was whispered during the trial but largely dismissed as a conspiracy theory. It gained currency in large part as a result of an unusual decision Mr. Bollea’s legal team made: It purposely excluded a claim that would have allowed Gawker’s insurance company to help pay for its defense as well as damages. The move struck observers as odd because most plaintiffs seeking damages usually hope to settle the case by leveraging the deep pockets of an insurer."
- Teeboo 10y ago
  I raise News International as an example of the worst kinds of media behaviour, an example mirrored by the Gawker illegality in publishing Hogan's private videotape. The two events are part of a larger narrative (for me) in which Thiel is attempting to redress. That narrative is inspired by his own negative treatment in outing his sexuality. You also said something disturbing..."voicemail hack ...almost universally condemned because it targeted victims and those with almost no power." Why on earth do you think it becomes morally justified for for-profit media entities to hack and invade the private lives of citizens simply because they have achieved a fame or some power in some sphere? That is mind-boggling. You are saying that if your father or mother or sister or you became famous you would consent to the public destroying your private life through illegal actions in order to sell papers or generate clickbait. Seriously, how can you reconcile that?

by Teeboo 10y ago

lotso 10y ago

How can you be Team Thiel and have these opinions when Thiel financially supported the person who made the acorn videos? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

Teeboo 10y ago
Source for Thiel's involvement? Cannot find any reference to Thiel in the associated articles. A better question might be, if you are against Thiel in the matter of Hogan v Gawker; what thinking has led you to a defence of the Gawker behaviour?
- lotso 10y ago
  >http://www.villagevoice.com/news/conservative-facebook-investor-funded-anti-acorn-videographer-6687024 http://www.villagevoice.com/news/conservative-facebook-inves... Look, I agree Gawker crosses the line time to time and is seen as a garbage blog by many people. What's worrisome to me is that Thiel has orchestrated a shadow campaign based on what to me seems like personal revenge than actually wanting to right a wrong or to discourage unethical behavior.

AlexandrB 10y ago

> Who said deference to those in power? You didn't specify who the press is supposed to defer to. So the obvious assumption is "everybody including those in power", especially since we're talking about Peter Thiel who has a not insignificant amount of power due to his wealth. I don't understand why you keep bringing up the News International voicemail hack which has nothing to do with Gawker and was almost universally condemned because it targeted victims and those with almost no power. The actions[1] of the Bollea legal team make it clear that this isn't about getting justice for Hulk Hogan, but about destroying Gawker. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th... "Speculation that a secret benefactor was backing Mr. Bollea’s case was whispered during the trial but largely dismissed as a conspiracy theory. It gained currency in large part as a result of an unusual decision Mr. Bollea’s legal team made: It purposely excluded a claim that would have allowed Gawker’s insurance company to help pay for its defense as well as damages. The move struck observers as odd because most plaintiffs seeking damages usually hope to settle the case by leveraging the deep pockets of an insurer."

Teeboo 10y ago
I raise News International as an example of the worst kinds of media behaviour, an example mirrored by the Gawker illegality in publishing Hogan's private videotape. The two events are part of a larger narrative (for me) in which Thiel is attempting to redress. That narrative is inspired by his own negative treatment in outing his sexuality. You also said something disturbing..."voicemail hack ...almost universally condemned because it targeted victims and those with almost no power." Why on earth do you think it becomes morally justified for for-profit media entities to hack and invade the private lives of citizens simply because they have achieved a fame or some power in some sphere? That is mind-boggling. You are saying that if your father or mother or sister or you became famous you would consent to the public destroying your private life through illegal actions in order to sell papers or generate clickbait. Seriously, how can you reconcile that?