3 ms·

I have been seeing a lot of people I know defending Gawker and I don't really get it. If a business uses illegal practices they should be sued. There is freedom

I have been seeing a lot of people I know defending Gawker and I don't really get it. If a business uses illegal practices they should be sued. There is freedom of the press but that doesn't give you complete immunity for everything. It seems like journalists these days think they can do anything they want. Remember the News International phone hacking scandal? You can't break the law to get profits. I wouldn't mind if the "next gawker" is underground -- at least no one would be profiting on shady journalist tactics

thatcat 10y ago
>Remember News International phone hacking Did they hack Hogans phone to get the tape? >Gawker says it received the Hogan sex tape anonymously on a DVD in the mail [0] People are defending Gawker because outing Peter Thiel wasn't illegal and the First Amendment is specific about celebrities personal lives being news worthy. Hogan's a public figure by his own choice and the story was true, it's not even really a case worth trying. The fact that Thiel can bleed a publisher until it goes out of business for hurting his feelings shows how unfortunately fragile the first amendment has become. [0] http://www.wired.com/2016/03/hulk-hogans-nsfw-gawker-suit-free-speech-battle-royale/ http://www.wired.com/2016/03/hulk-hogans-nsfw-gawker-suit-fr...