4 ms·

if we're talking about free speech here. gawker did not do anything illegal to out peter thiel. a shitty thing to do? yes. illegal? no. so essentially thiel pl

by swang 10y ago

if we're talking about free speech here. gawker did not do anything illegal to out peter thiel. a shitty thing to do? yes. illegal? no. so essentially thiel planned revenge because they did something shitty and he did not like it. again pretty shitty of gawker to out him, also pretty shitty of thiel to chill free speech. not sure there are any real winners to root for here. bringing down gawker did bring down a lot of the satellite sites that were actually doing really good reporting. very few sports websites were talking at all about the sexual assaults going on in colleges, deadspin (a gawker blog) was probably the foremost site posting about it (and other violations by schools).

fredgrott 10y ago
let me explain free speech to you... I am free to speak but not free to incite illegal acts or acts that result in violence..for example I cannot shot fire in a crowed theater..its NOT FREE SPEECH. The court ruling stated it was not protected free speech..read it
- swang 10y ago
  what does any of that have to do with any of this case? did any of this incite illegal acts or acts that resulted in violence? no. that part of your post has zero relevance to either my post or to the current situation (did someone kill someone? did someone make someone cause someone else to commit an illegal act?) i said outing peter thiel is not illegal. and in fact the supreme court has ruled that reporting facts is permissible. _but_ it is a really shitty thing to out people. and the saying is "falsely shout fire in a crowded theater" not just "shout fire in a crowded theater" read up son. you should also read up because that saying is not "law" and the court case that it originated from was overturned because of its gross ignorance of the first amendment. read up son x2.
  - vanattab 10y ago
    >i said outing peter thiel is not illegal. and in fact the supreme court has ruled that reporting facts is permissible. _but_ it is a really shitty thing to out people. What does this have to do with the case? The case is about a sex tape not outing thiel.
    - swang 10y ago
      the reason he helped hulk hogan was because gawker, "outed" him about 9 years ago. this article is not about the gawker case. it is... i don't know, thiel gloating? trying to deflect any criticism? trying to continue to punish gawker by posting this article the day before final bids for gawker are being accepted?
anamoulous 10y ago
Gawker obtained a sex recording and published it without consent of the people in it. That's what was presented at trial and the jury ruled it was an invasion of privacy. It's that act (and very poor representation of themselves at trial) that has landed Gawker in the position they are in now.
marcoperaza 10y ago
>very few sports websites were talking at all about the sexual assaults going on in colleges Here's something to consider: a lot of that is sensationalized yellow journalism as well. They take surveys that include behavior that is usually handled at the social level (e.g. guy goes in for a kiss and girl doesn't want it) and count it as part of the headline "Sexual Assault" figure. In the most technical and pedantic sense they are correct, but no victim would ever file that complaint, no prosecutor would ever bring that charge, and no jury would ever convict on it. i.e. Most of the "sexual assaults" that are counted in those statistics wouldn't even be considered as such by the alleged victim. That's not to say that there aren't real sexual assaults that happen at colleges, but it's nothing like the sensational statistics that journalists like to throw around. Look at what Rolling Stone did to a bunch of innocent young men at the University of Virginia when one of their reporters went "looking for a rape story". Any reputable journalist knows that if you walk around soliciting sensational stories, someone will tell you one. Ultimately, it was all proven false, but it no doubt ruined several totally innocent people. Rolling Stone and the particular journalist are now being deservedly sued for over $30 million. Free speech is not license to spread lies or to intrude into people's personal lives. Political and religious speech is very protected, but there are many reasonable limits on everything else.
- swang 10y ago
  from your comment i know you've never read anything on deadspin. > Here's something to consider: a lot of that is sensationalized yellow journalism as well. They take surveys that include behavior that is usually handled at the social level (e.g. guy goes in for a kiss and girl doesn't want it) and count it as part of the headline "Sexual Assault" figure. In the most technical and pedantic sense they are correct, but no victim would ever file that complaint, no prosecutor would ever bring that charge, and no jury would ever convict on it. i.e. Most of the sexual assaults that count in those statistics wouldn't even be considered as such by the alleged victim. i mean if you're going to say this at least have something that backs this up. but regardless, feel free to read the articles themselves and decide for yourself their merit: Florida Hired Football Booster To Oversee Hearing For Player Accused Of Sexual Assault: http://deadspin.com/florida-hired-football-booster-to-oversee-hearing-for-p-1784877378 http://deadspin.com/florida-hired-football-booster-to-overse... Or better yet, just read the entire saga about Baylor: http://deadspin.com/tag/baylor-bears http://deadspin.com/tag/baylor-bears
nikcheerla 10y ago
I suspect you are confused about the facts of the case – specifically, this has nothing to do with Peter Thiel's outing and everything to do with the fact that Gawker released Hulk Hogan's sex tape to the public and a court found that to be an unethical violation of privacy.
- swang 10y ago
  i'm not confused. i am discussing the hypocrisy of thiel saying he's about protecting free speech when the thing he was originally angry about (his being outed) was free speech. he doesn't give a shit about hulk hogan or his privacy being violated. all he wanted was a legally winnable case to get at gawker. so to say he still supports free speech is laughable when the origin of his "fight" was something that was legally free speech.
  - nikcheerla 10y ago
    Obligatory xkcd about free speech: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ Gawker's outing was free speech. Peter Thiel giving money to Hulk Hogan to fight his legal battle was also free speech. There's nothing hypocritical about wanting to protect free speech, yet disliking someone's specific use of free speech.
    - swang 10y ago
      the hypocrisy is in saying, hey i still believe in free speech, while punishing free speech because he doesn't like what was said. that just means he's all for speech that doesn't affect his bottom line.
      - serge2k 10y ago
        Except he's not suppressing dissenting opinions or hushing up stories about his wrongdoings. He is going after them for outing him as gay. Gawker does this to people as a matter of policy. This policy has lead to people committing suicide, they have fired reporters who disagreed with it. It is a legal policy, they have the right to do this. You can find cases where doing it isn't that unreasonable. A politician with an awful record on gay rights gets caught with a male prostitute, that's news worthy. It is a matter the public has an interest in. A VC being gay? Why say anything. It's just cruel tabloid gossip.

by swang 10y ago

fredgrott 10y ago

let me explain free speech to you... I am free to speak but not free to incite illegal acts or acts that result in violence..for example I cannot shot fire in a crowed theater..its NOT FREE SPEECH. The court ruling stated it was not protected free speech..read it

swang 10y ago
what does any of that have to do with any of this case? did any of this incite illegal acts or acts that resulted in violence? no. that part of your post has zero relevance to either my post or to the current situation (did someone kill someone? did someone make someone cause someone else to commit an illegal act?) i said outing peter thiel is not illegal. and in fact the supreme court has ruled that reporting facts is permissible. _but_ it is a really shitty thing to out people. and the saying is "falsely shout fire in a crowded theater" not just "shout fire in a crowded theater" read up son. you should also read up because that saying is not "law" and the court case that it originated from was overturned because of its gross ignorance of the first amendment. read up son x2.
- vanattab 10y ago
  >i said outing peter thiel is not illegal. and in fact the supreme court has ruled that reporting facts is permissible. _but_ it is a really shitty thing to out people. What does this have to do with the case? The case is about a sex tape not outing thiel.
  - swang 10y ago
    the reason he helped hulk hogan was because gawker, "outed" him about 9 years ago. this article is not about the gawker case. it is... i don't know, thiel gloating? trying to deflect any criticism? trying to continue to punish gawker by posting this article the day before final bids for gawker are being accepted?

anamoulous 10y ago

Gawker obtained a sex recording and published it without consent of the people in it. That's what was presented at trial and the jury ruled it was an invasion of privacy. It's that act (and very poor representation of themselves at trial) that has landed Gawker in the position they are in now.

marcoperaza 10y ago

>very few sports websites were talking at all about the sexual assaults going on in colleges Here's something to consider: a lot of that is sensationalized yellow journalism as well. They take surveys that include behavior that is usually handled at the social level (e.g. guy goes in for a kiss and girl doesn't want it) and count it as part of the headline "Sexual Assault" figure. In the most technical and pedantic sense they are correct, but no victim would ever file that complaint, no prosecutor would ever bring that charge, and no jury would ever convict on it. i.e. Most of the "sexual assaults" that are counted in those statistics wouldn't even be considered as such by the alleged victim. That's not to say that there aren't real sexual assaults that happen at colleges, but it's nothing like the sensational statistics that journalists like to throw around. Look at what Rolling Stone did to a bunch of innocent young men at the University of Virginia when one of their reporters went "looking for a rape story". Any reputable journalist knows that if you walk around soliciting sensational stories, someone will tell you one. Ultimately, it was all proven false, but it no doubt ruined several totally innocent people. Rolling Stone and the particular journalist are now being deservedly sued for over $30 million. Free speech is not license to spread lies or to intrude into people's personal lives. Political and religious speech is very protected, but there are many reasonable limits on everything else.

swang 10y ago
from your comment i know you've never read anything on deadspin. > Here's something to consider: a lot of that is sensationalized yellow journalism as well. They take surveys that include behavior that is usually handled at the social level (e.g. guy goes in for a kiss and girl doesn't want it) and count it as part of the headline "Sexual Assault" figure. In the most technical and pedantic sense they are correct, but no victim would ever file that complaint, no prosecutor would ever bring that charge, and no jury would ever convict on it. i.e. Most of the sexual assaults that count in those statistics wouldn't even be considered as such by the alleged victim. i mean if you're going to say this at least have something that backs this up. but regardless, feel free to read the articles themselves and decide for yourself their merit: Florida Hired Football Booster To Oversee Hearing For Player Accused Of Sexual Assault: http://deadspin.com/florida-hired-football-booster-to-oversee-hearing-for-p-1784877378 http://deadspin.com/florida-hired-football-booster-to-overse... Or better yet, just read the entire saga about Baylor: http://deadspin.com/tag/baylor-bears http://deadspin.com/tag/baylor-bears

nikcheerla 10y ago

I suspect you are confused about the facts of the case – specifically, this has nothing to do with Peter Thiel's outing and everything to do with the fact that Gawker released Hulk Hogan's sex tape to the public and a court found that to be an unethical violation of privacy.

swang 10y ago
i'm not confused. i am discussing the hypocrisy of thiel saying he's about protecting free speech when the thing he was originally angry about (his being outed) was free speech. he doesn't give a shit about hulk hogan or his privacy being violated. all he wanted was a legally winnable case to get at gawker. so to say he still supports free speech is laughable when the origin of his "fight" was something that was legally free speech.
- nikcheerla 10y ago
  Obligatory xkcd about free speech: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ Gawker's outing was free speech. Peter Thiel giving money to Hulk Hogan to fight his legal battle was also free speech. There's nothing hypocritical about wanting to protect free speech, yet disliking someone's specific use of free speech.
  - swang 10y ago
    the hypocrisy is in saying, hey i still believe in free speech, while punishing free speech because he doesn't like what was said. that just means he's all for speech that doesn't affect his bottom line.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      Except he's not suppressing dissenting opinions or hushing up stories about his wrongdoings. He is going after them for outing him as gay. Gawker does this to people as a matter of policy. This policy has lead to people committing suicide, they have fired reporters who disagreed with it. It is a legal policy, they have the right to do this. You can find cases where doing it isn't that unreasonable. A politician with an awful record on gay rights gets caught with a male prostitute, that's news worthy. It is a matter the public has an interest in. A VC being gay? Why say anything. It's just cruel tabloid gossip.