4 ms·

Forgive me if I missed it, but has Gawker been "critical" of Thiel in the traditional sense? I'm tracking that they outed him - not that they've been publishing

Forgive me if I missed it, but has Gawker been "critical" of Thiel in the traditional sense? I'm tracking that they outed him - not that they've been publishing anti-Thiel business editorials - and that they published a sex tape without the permission of those who made it. It appears that we're starting to conflate protected free speech with invasions of privacy. It's not immediately clear that shouting "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of AIDS!" falls into the latter category, so I don't really see how that's relevant.

blintz 10y ago
If being homosexual is not societally acceptable, or carries a stigma (as it did at the time, as evidenced by Thiel's own criticism of it as an unhealthy "lifestyle"), then isn't yelling "Faggot!" at someone rather privacy-invading? As Thiel would himself know from Gawker's outing of him?
- remarkEon 10y ago
  I suppose it would depend on the perception of the audience, would it not? It's certainly possible that someone hearing someone yell "Faggot!" could construe that to mean a foul pejorative. That's wholly different Gawker's type of privacy invasion(s) that explicitly seek to convey, without doubt, someone's private sexual orientation. I don't see the equivalence.
FireBeyond 10y ago
"without the permission of those who made it." Well, no, the person who made the tape (not the "star"(s)) absolutely gave "permission". He sent the tape to Gawker himself. Guess what? He was sued, and Hogan settled with him. For $5,000.
- remarkEon 10y ago
  When I used the word "made" I assumed it would be taken as those performing the act. It's not relevant that the "director", if you will, sent the tape to Gawker.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    It's true. I noted your point, as well. I also think it's noteworthy that the fact that the person who actually breached Hogan's -trust- was "punished" so lightly (granted, he settled, but I wonder how much Hogan would have settled with Gawker for, with and without Thiel's involvement).

blintz 10y ago

If being homosexual is not societally acceptable, or carries a stigma (as it did at the time, as evidenced by Thiel's own criticism of it as an unhealthy "lifestyle"), then isn't yelling "Faggot!" at someone rather privacy-invading? As Thiel would himself know from Gawker's outing of him?

remarkEon 10y ago
I suppose it would depend on the perception of the audience, would it not? It's certainly possible that someone hearing someone yell "Faggot!" could construe that to mean a foul pejorative. That's wholly different Gawker's type of privacy invasion(s) that explicitly seek to convey, without doubt, someone's private sexual orientation. I don't see the equivalence.

FireBeyond 10y ago

"without the permission of those who made it." Well, no, the person who made the tape (not the "star"(s)) absolutely gave "permission". He sent the tape to Gawker himself. Guess what? He was sued, and Hogan settled with him. For $5,000.

remarkEon 10y ago
When I used the word "made" I assumed it would be taken as those performing the act. It's not relevant that the "director", if you will, sent the tape to Gawker.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  It's true. I noted your point, as well. I also think it's noteworthy that the fact that the person who actually breached Hogan's -trust- was "punished" so lightly (granted, he settled, but I wonder how much Hogan would have settled with Gawker for, with and without Thiel's involvement).