6 ms·

This is not disturbing on a First Amendment level. What is disturbing is the misconception that the First Amendment applies to anyone other than the government

This is not disturbing on a First Amendment level. What is disturbing is the misconception that the First Amendment applies to anyone other than the government. It does seem like a questionable result on its face, but not for 1st amendment reasons.

danso 10y ago
i get what you're saying in the sense that people often erroneously cry "First Amendment" when being censored by a private entity. But the legislating of libel is most definitely a First Amendment issue. That's is why the Supreme Court makes rulings on the standard of defamation, particularly in regard to public figures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan The Sullivan case does not only apply to the critique of government officials. Jerry Falwell tried to sue Hustler for depicting him as an incestuous drunk; the Supreme Court ruled against him, 8-0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
- grzm 10y ago
  s/government officials/public figures/ no? Or am I misunderstanding?
  - danso 10y ago
    Jerry Falwell is not a public official, he was a famous (many would say infamous) Southern Baptist pastor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell And I don't believe Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was in regards to whether Hustler could mock him on religious grounds. From the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell > Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Looks like I misread your original comment. Sorry! Thanks for clarifying.
- pmiller2 10y ago
  This is an out of court settlement, not a trial result. Had it gone to trial, truth is an absolute defense to libel, so there's still no first amendment concern.
  - Retric 10y ago
    The courts are part of the government. And settling only has meaning due to the laws that govern free speech. PS: It's not may make no law, except the kind that let's politicians sue people.
    - pmiller2 10y ago
      This is one private party suing another private party. All the court did is accept a settlement offer (which probably took place even before the trial itself started, so there wasn't even any actual finding of fact).
      - Retric 10y ago
        Which only happened because of how the court would have likely responded. If a judge would have thrown out the case in 5 minutes then there would have been no settlement.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- pmiller2 10y ago
  This is an out of court settlement, not a trial result. Had it gone to trial, truth is an absolute defense to libel, so there's still no first amendment concern.
dalke 10y ago
"Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ... was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc. Ayyadurai would likely be a "limited public figure", under the Gertz v. Welch standard, given his public promotion of himself as the "inventor of email."
michaelmrose 10y ago
Its disengenious to suggest that because the government is only providing the venue whereby litigant demands hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and enforces this judgement by confiscating plantifs goods that there isn't a first ammendment interest in the case. Just as the government may not suppress the right to speech by threat of jail and direct confiscation of money it also cannot provide a venue for other citizens to do so. Pretending that the first ammendment and libel/defamation/slander don't intersect is a gross misstatement. Please see http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-free-speech.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamat... https://debmcalister.com/2011/06/03/7-things-you-cant-claim-first-amendment-rights-to-say/ https://debmcalister.com/2011/06/03/7-things-you-cant-claim-... http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/libel-defamation http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/libel-defamation That said this was settled out of court for good for ill so its moot.
- pmiller2 10y ago
  I have read every word of the links you posted. If anything, they make my point. I am not claiming that the 1st amendment and libel law do not intersect. They are quite intimately entwined! Libel laws exist for a reason: because a person has a right to maintain his or her good name in the face of false allegations. The ability to bring suit is one of our legal system's methods of protecting that right. Libel laws (which provide truth as an absolute defense) have been found to be constitutionally valid in multiple court cases over the years. I am a bit puzzled why there was even a settlement at all. Had this gone to trial, there are enough living witnesses to the creation of email as we know it in the early 70s that the case should likely have been dismissed as without merit. There's clearly something going on here that's not in the article, but it's not first amendment shenanigans.
  - danso 10y ago
    According to Nick Denton, this was because he believes the Hogan and the other cases were intertwined, and if he didn't settle with Ayyadurai, Thiel would have continued to hammer Gawker, him, and his former reporters.

danso 10y ago

i get what you're saying in the sense that people often erroneously cry "First Amendment" when being censored by a private entity. But the legislating of libel is most definitely a First Amendment issue. That's is why the Supreme Court makes rulings on the standard of defamation, particularly in regard to public figures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan The Sullivan case does not only apply to the critique of government officials. Jerry Falwell tried to sue Hustler for depicting him as an incestuous drunk; the Supreme Court ruled against him, 8-0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

grzm 10y ago
s/government officials/public figures/ no? Or am I misunderstanding?
- danso 10y ago
  Jerry Falwell is not a public official, he was a famous (many would say infamous) Southern Baptist pastor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell And I don't believe Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was in regards to whether Hustler could mock him on religious grounds. From the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell > Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Looks like I misread your original comment. Sorry! Thanks for clarifying.
pmiller2 10y ago
This is an out of court settlement, not a trial result. Had it gone to trial, truth is an absolute defense to libel, so there's still no first amendment concern.
- Retric 10y ago
  The courts are part of the government. And settling only has meaning due to the laws that govern free speech. PS: It's not may make no law, except the kind that let's politicians sue people.
  - pmiller2 10y ago
    This is one private party suing another private party. All the court did is accept a settlement offer (which probably took place even before the trial itself started, so there wasn't even any actual finding of fact).
    - Retric 10y ago
      Which only happened because of how the court would have likely responded. If a judge would have thrown out the case in 5 minutes then there would have been no settlement.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
pmiller2 10y ago
This is an out of court settlement, not a trial result. Had it gone to trial, truth is an absolute defense to libel, so there's still no first amendment concern.

dalke 10y ago

"Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ... was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc. Ayyadurai would likely be a "limited public figure", under the Gertz v. Welch standard, given his public promotion of himself as the "inventor of email."

michaelmrose 10y ago

Its disengenious to suggest that because the government is only providing the venue whereby litigant demands hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and enforces this judgement by confiscating plantifs goods that there isn't a first ammendment interest in the case. Just as the government may not suppress the right to speech by threat of jail and direct confiscation of money it also cannot provide a venue for other citizens to do so. Pretending that the first ammendment and libel/defamation/slander don't intersect is a gross misstatement. Please see http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-free-speech.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamat... https://debmcalister.com/2011/06/03/7-things-you-cant-claim-first-amendment-rights-to-say/ https://debmcalister.com/2011/06/03/7-things-you-cant-claim-... http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/libel-defamation http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/libel-defamation That said this was settled out of court for good for ill so its moot.

pmiller2 10y ago
I have read every word of the links you posted. If anything, they make my point. I am not claiming that the 1st amendment and libel law do not intersect. They are quite intimately entwined! Libel laws exist for a reason: because a person has a right to maintain his or her good name in the face of false allegations. The ability to bring suit is one of our legal system's methods of protecting that right. Libel laws (which provide truth as an absolute defense) have been found to be constitutionally valid in multiple court cases over the years. I am a bit puzzled why there was even a settlement at all. Had this gone to trial, there are enough living witnesses to the creation of email as we know it in the early 70s that the case should likely have been dismissed as without merit. There's clearly something going on here that's not in the article, but it's not first amendment shenanigans.
- danso 10y ago
  According to Nick Denton, this was because he believes the Hogan and the other cases were intertwined, and if he didn't settle with Ayyadurai, Thiel would have continued to hammer Gawker, him, and his former reporters.