3 ms·

Is your point that I should ignore my convictions because I find the defendants detestable? Because while I don't feel Gawker is quite as awful as a group of wh

by byuu 10y ago

Is your point that I should ignore my convictions because I find the defendants detestable? Because while I don't feel Gawker is quite as awful as a group of white supremacists, I do very much dislike Gawker and would not be saddened to see them go. I'm not really interested in loose-fitting analogies. Gawker didn't hire someone that shot at and kidnapped anyone. Let's rephrase it as a direct equivalence: let's say AN had a website where they outed Thiel, and then posted a sex tape of someone else. Then yes, I would feel the same way as I do now. My level of contempt for the defendent has no bearing on my concern over Thiel's actions. That would be very dangerous thinking as well, to have different sets of ethics depending upon who the defendants are. One of these days, it may be a website you support revealing embarrassing yet truthful information about someone wealthy (and maybe you think it's justified because of this person's actions), and you'll end up with someone you despise using their vast wealth to bankroll lawsuits. That said, I would like to see the cost of justice go way down. People are correct, you shouldn't need to be a billionaire to sue. And honestly, I don't think you'd have to be. I'm quite sure Bollea could have funded this lawsuit himself. Gawker isn't Oracle or Google with seven-figure lawyers on retainer. If Gawker really did break the law, and so far the first jury verdict suggests they did, then they should be punished, certainly. I just don't like a system where the rich can scare journalists (a term I do not consider applicable to Gawker writers), and the poor don't have access to the same justice that they do.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
In both cases, there is a group (call them X) who's speech is disliked. X engaged in illegal actions. A lawsuit was filed against them and funded by third parties in order to hinder/shut down X. The plaintiffs emerged victorious, suggesting the lawsuit had merit (i.e. it wasn't a frivolous lawsuit). I stand by the analogy. And yes, I'm asking if you oppose SPLC the same way you oppose Thiel. I actually do oppose Thiel here (though not the SPLC) since I'm opposed to revenge porn laws. However I'd support Thiel if he were targeting Gawker for something I think should be illegal. But I'm asking because very few of Thiel's critics seem willing to actually bite that bullet. (Incidentally, I was opposed to actions like this way back when the victims were completely sympathetic innocent females and the perpetrators were giant jerky perverts too. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moo... )

by byuu 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

In both cases, there is a group (call them X) who's speech is disliked. X engaged in illegal actions. A lawsuit was filed against them and funded by third parties in order to hinder/shut down X. The plaintiffs emerged victorious, suggesting the lawsuit had merit (i.e. it wasn't a frivolous lawsuit). I stand by the analogy. And yes, I'm asking if you oppose SPLC the same way you oppose Thiel. I actually do oppose Thiel here (though not the SPLC) since I'm opposed to revenge porn laws. However I'd support Thiel if he were targeting Gawker for something I think should be illegal. But I'm asking because very few of Thiel's critics seem willing to actually bite that bullet. (Incidentally, I was opposed to actions like this way back when the victims were completely sympathetic innocent females and the perpetrators were giant jerky perverts too. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moo... )