4 ms·

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

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.
      - swang 10y ago
        i am against outing people. gawker's policy of outing people, at best, is terrible. saying people being outed could cause them to commit suicide is true. but > 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. you're going to have to cite any firing. there have been resignations because nick denton took down an article about a conde nast executive who was gay and the editors disagreed with the article takedown. no one (afaik) was fired. they resigned because their article got taken down. also saying gawker outs being as a matter of policy... what. also let's talk about thiel's outing. thiel was a huge investor in facebook, therefore he is a public figure. and is it really an out-of-the-closet "outing" if nearly everyone who worked with thiel knew, and told that to people outside of thiel's general circle? you think the author of the story dug through thiel's trash to find out that he was gay? it was pretty much common knowledge regardless of what thiel's dislike of talking about it. and imo he is suppressing dissenting opinions. cross peter thiel and you better prepare to go through a legal battle for it even if what was said was not libel.
      - FireBeyond 10y ago
        "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." Apropos of anything else and the merits thereof, the courts have held that billionaires are public figures whether they particularly wish to be or not because of the disproportionate level of influence they wield or are capable of wielding.

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.
    - swang 10y ago
      i am against outing people. gawker's policy of outing people, at best, is terrible. saying people being outed could cause them to commit suicide is true. but > 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. you're going to have to cite any firing. there have been resignations because nick denton took down an article about a conde nast executive who was gay and the editors disagreed with the article takedown. no one (afaik) was fired. they resigned because their article got taken down. also saying gawker outs being as a matter of policy... what. also let's talk about thiel's outing. thiel was a huge investor in facebook, therefore he is a public figure. and is it really an out-of-the-closet "outing" if nearly everyone who worked with thiel knew, and told that to people outside of thiel's general circle? you think the author of the story dug through thiel's trash to find out that he was gay? it was pretty much common knowledge regardless of what thiel's dislike of talking about it. and imo he is suppressing dissenting opinions. cross peter thiel and you better prepare to go through a legal battle for it even if what was said was not libel.
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      "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." Apropos of anything else and the merits thereof, the courts have held that billionaires are public figures whether they particularly wish to be or not because of the disproportionate level of influence they wield or are capable of wielding.