3 ms·
Except that the incident was found to be newsworthy and not illegal in two previous cases, once in federal court and another attempt in Florida state court [1].
by incogitomode 10y ago
Except that the incident was found to be newsworthy and not illegal in two previous cases, once in federal court and another attempt in Florida state court [1].
Shopping for a favorable venue, and convincing one jury in a civil case does not make for a very compelling argument of "illegality."
[1] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan-v-gawker/ https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan-v...
- swang 10y agohaha wow i never knew about this part of the case. kinda makes this whole thing even more of a shit storm.
- hsod 10y agoThose are both decisions regarding preliminary injunctions, so your claim that they were found "not illegal" is erroneous. It's explained pretty clearly in the short paragraphs you linked to.
- incogitomode 10y agoFair to say, but I believe they were testing the waters again and again just to find a venue that was favorable, undermining whatever notion the original commenter was attempting to conjure about the definitive nature of legality here. If the legality of a case like this is also supposed as a proxy for the (universal) morality of the verdict and the arguments Thiel likes to make about Gawker's journalistic sins it certainly seems like a federal suit would have been a more appropriate arena for proving the point.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoNothing illegal in testing waters. :)