3 ms·

Just as it should be. In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get away w

by CM30 10y ago

Just as it should be. In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get away with, ethics or newsworthiness be damned. And in a lot of cases, they got away with this purely because the people who were affected weren't rich enough to fight against the company's army of lawyers. You can see this mindset quite fine in the answer to a question A.J. Daulerio (Gawker editor) was asked in court: Interviewer: Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy? Daulerio: If they were a child Interviewer: Under what age? Daulerio: Four That's not edited. He actually said that was where Gawker would draw in regards to what the minimum age for a sex tape featured on their site was. And that sort of thing is a trend in modern tabloid journalism. The idea that anything goes, privacy and ethics be damned as long as it gets clicka/the person affected is someone we don't like. In some cases, even if that means encouraging violence towards political opponents and riots. This lawsuit will hopefully teach the media that freedom of the press doesn't mean 'anything goes, laws be damned'. Maybe it'll also encourage journalists and editors to think about the consequences of their actions rather than just how many page views they'll get...

CarpetBench 10y ago
I mean, he's clearly joking if you read the transcript. He's an idiot for having even made that joke, but still. I think that whole conversation is a perfect example of why you have to be extremely careful when making tasteless jokes, especially in situations we typically think of as fairly serious (e.g. court). The jury probably didn't think highly of Gawker after that exchange, either.
- protomyth 10y ago
  He was under oath. Don't make jokes while under oath is a pretty good guide to life.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
    Anybody stupid enough to make a joke like that under oath in a court room deserves to be fired. Any company stupid enough hire a person like that and place them in a position of authority deserves bankruptcy.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    > "under oath" Arbitrary thing you are told to believe in. Not telling people you were gay was a "pretty good guide to life" 20 years ago. You are right, but that doesn't mean you should disrespect people who break societies rules just for that. If you believe in the 'oath' it's different, but I feel like you should say that.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      > Arbitrary thing you are told to believe in. More than that for some, but a part of a court case that has implications in the law. > Not telling people you were gay was a "pretty good guide to life" 20 years ago. No clue where that came from, but I guess if you don't believe in oaths, it might work for you. > You are right, but that doesn't mean you should disrespect people who break societies rules just for that. > If you believe in the 'oath' it's different, but I feel like you should say that. When you are "under oath" and lie, even if you think it is a joke, there are laws and penalties. It is an event in court room procedure. Even if you personally don't believe in oaths, the law and court procedure don't care.
  - CarpetBench 10y ago
    Yeah, I agree. He was being an idiot. I was just trying to point out that he didn't actually support sex tapes for 5 year olds. He's a dumbass for trying to make a joke under oath, but not a dumbass who would post a 5 year-old's celebrity sex tape.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I quite agree he isn't that big of a dumbass to post and underage sex tape, but he really needed to accord himself better in that setting under those circumstances. Plus, its an important lesson for people. When dealing with a situation where your words will be interpreted by people you don't know with harsh penalties for lying or just sounding disreputable, you need to be precise and respectful with your words.
      - CarpetBench 10y ago
        Absolutely. Agreed.
zeveb 10y ago
> In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get away with, ethics or newsworthiness be damned. C.f. also 'journalist shield' laws which give journalists special privilege not to testify that citizens in general do not have. As a matter of principle, I think that anyone should have the right to refuse to provide evidence to prosecute a case (I am okay with the idea of the defense being able to compel testimony); allowing some people to have such privilege but denying it to others sets a very bad precedent, akin to the old 'benefit of clergy.'

by CM30 10y ago

CarpetBench 10y ago

I mean, he's clearly joking if you read the transcript. He's an idiot for having even made that joke, but still. I think that whole conversation is a perfect example of why you have to be extremely careful when making tasteless jokes, especially in situations we typically think of as fairly serious (e.g. court). The jury probably didn't think highly of Gawker after that exchange, either.

protomyth 10y ago
He was under oath. Don't make jokes while under oath is a pretty good guide to life.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
  Anybody stupid enough to make a joke like that under oath in a court room deserves to be fired. Any company stupid enough hire a person like that and place them in a position of authority deserves bankruptcy.
- aaron695 10y ago
  > "under oath" Arbitrary thing you are told to believe in. Not telling people you were gay was a "pretty good guide to life" 20 years ago. You are right, but that doesn't mean you should disrespect people who break societies rules just for that. If you believe in the 'oath' it's different, but I feel like you should say that.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    > Arbitrary thing you are told to believe in. More than that for some, but a part of a court case that has implications in the law. > Not telling people you were gay was a "pretty good guide to life" 20 years ago. No clue where that came from, but I guess if you don't believe in oaths, it might work for you. > You are right, but that doesn't mean you should disrespect people who break societies rules just for that. > If you believe in the 'oath' it's different, but I feel like you should say that. When you are "under oath" and lie, even if you think it is a joke, there are laws and penalties. It is an event in court room procedure. Even if you personally don't believe in oaths, the law and court procedure don't care.
- CarpetBench 10y ago
  Yeah, I agree. He was being an idiot. I was just trying to point out that he didn't actually support sex tapes for 5 year olds. He's a dumbass for trying to make a joke under oath, but not a dumbass who would post a 5 year-old's celebrity sex tape.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I quite agree he isn't that big of a dumbass to post and underage sex tape, but he really needed to accord himself better in that setting under those circumstances. Plus, its an important lesson for people. When dealing with a situation where your words will be interpreted by people you don't know with harsh penalties for lying or just sounding disreputable, you need to be precise and respectful with your words.
    - CarpetBench 10y ago
      Absolutely. Agreed.

zeveb 10y ago

> In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get away with, ethics or newsworthiness be damned. C.f. also 'journalist shield' laws which give journalists special privilege not to testify that citizens in general do not have. As a matter of principle, I think that anyone should have the right to refuse to provide evidence to prosecute a case (I am okay with the idea of the defense being able to compel testimony); allowing some people to have such privilege but denying it to others sets a very bad precedent, akin to the old 'benefit of clergy.'