5 ms·

You like the Fifth Estate's free speech curtailed? > who are truly the ones to suffer at the hands of all of these levels of irresponsibility. The people are

You like the Fifth Estate's free speech curtailed? > who are truly the ones to suffer at the hands of all of these levels of irresponsibility. The people are the ones to suffer? No. The people suffer when their free speech rights are attacked. Holy christ, the anti-free speech crusaders are in force today.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Their free speech isn't being curtailed. Free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you want without repercussions or consequences. People are down voting you here, I guess that means your free speech is being attacked as well?
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > Their free speech isn't being curtailed Really? Going out of business isn't having their speech curtailed? > Free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you want without repercussions or consequences. Sure... > People are down voting you here, I guess that means your free speech is being attacked as well? No. I'm still allowed to comment aren't I? You are able to read my comments aren't you? Certainly, even people like you can understand that having a billionaire purposefully sue you to bankrupt you is a tad different than downvotes.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    They went out of business because they did something wrong, and the judge agreed with the plaintiff that they should pay damages. Instead of paying those damages, the people behind Gawker decided - using their own free will - that they would be better off shuttering the site. None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up. They gambled that HH wouldn't be willing to fight them back, and that the money they made from all the hoo-haw would be enough to keep them in business - but such is life in the free world. Free to win, free to lose: the system is there for both sides of the coin.
    - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
      > They went out of business because they did something wrong No. They went out of business because they ran out of money to continue their legal defense. > and the judge agreed with the plaintiff that they should pay damages. No. Not the judge. The JURY. > Instead of paying those damages, the people behind Gawker decided - using their own free will - that they would be better off shuttering the site. They could have continue with the legal proceedings but they didn't have the funds. > None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up. Really? TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES published segments of the sex tape. TMZ and those sites are still around. I already provided PROOF. You can repeat the same thing over and over again. It isn't going to magically turn true. >but such is life in the free world. Not in a free world. In a billionaire's world. > the system is there for both sides of the coin. Apparently, it's for the billionaire's. Using your logic, TMZ and most of the sites would be out of business. After all, they published the sex tape images LONG BEFORE gawker. Okay? You can spin it anyway you like. You are anti-free speech advocate.
      - mmjaa 9y ago
        The JURY don't have any powers without THE JUDGE, whose ratification of the decision the jury made is the only means by which the law finds force in society. Without the Judiciary, no Jury. That's how the law works. Gawker gambled on their ability to stay in business while also committing vile acts of hatred using their right to free speech. They lost the gamble. They weren't told "you can't have free speech" - they were told "you caused this amount of damage, by exercising your rights" - and it was Gawker themselves who decided they could not take responsibility for that damage, so they shuttered themselves. Gawker lost because they flaunted the law, and in spite of having a court order to cease their attacks on an individual, continued regardless. TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES did not flaunt the law, nor were they required to - as they were not the targets of the suit. "You are anti-free speech": No, you are simply wrong. I'm pro-free speech. I just don't think that its the golden get-out-of-jail card that you think it should be. There are other rights granted us by society; when one set of rights is used to impinge upon another, that is a case for the legal system to administer. You are yet to demonstrate an understanding of this fact: You can say what you want, but if it causes me harm, I also can say what I want - and when a multi-million dollar company goes up against an individual, I'm very glad of the fact that these rights are adjudicated in court. >Apparently, it's for the billionaire's. Gawker=multi-million-dollar BUSINESS. HH=(admittedly wealthy) INDIVIDUAL. Just whose side are you on there, buddy?
Clubber 9y ago
It has nothing to do with free speech, it's freedom of the press. Freedom of the press has immense value. Publishing HH's sex tape and all the tabloid garbage, fake news, etc isn't one of them. It's a problem of unlimited freedom. We do curtail freedom of speech with slander laws, just as we curtail freedom of the press with libel laws. Amazingly, much of the free press in the US have made themselves a liability to society by obfuscating what is truth and what is fiction without giving a second thought as to how detrimental it is to the country. Think Alex Jones and Fox News types. Think weasel words like "people think," "It's been said that," etc. Those are cues that the topic is as best unsubstantiated, at worst an outright falsehood to inspire fear in people for ad revenue. There are similar types on the opposite of the political spectrum. These companies exist to profit off of fear, obfuscation and anger. The best way to protect yourself? Don't publish shitty tabloid articles. Don't publish shit sex tapes of fucking HH, as if anyone wants to see that. If you are in the business of pushing sleaze and ruining people's lives for profit, piss off. Journalism's purpose in our society is to tell the population what the powerful people / government don't want them to know. The reason this is useful is because a democratically elected population needs to know what's going on in order to make correct choices come election time. They need to know if their government is corrupt. People don't need to know that Theil is gay or what HH looks like having sex. That's not journalism, that's not useful, that's gossip. As for this R Kelly business? Everyone knows he's a weirdo. Take it to the authorities if you want to make a difference. If the authorities ignore it and he's actually doing something illegal? Then publish it to force their hand.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  > Amazingly, much of the free press in the US have made themselves a liability to society by obfuscating what is truth and what is fiction without giving a second thought as to how detrimental it is to the country. Think Alex Jones and Fox News types. And the climate nowadays is better than it ever has been for outlets like Infowars. Alex Jones is supported by the president of the United States. Yet it's problematic for people who write well-substantiated, honest pieces on powerful entertainment celebrities like R. Kelly. The Gawker case did absolutely nothing to hold Infowars to account. It instead had the effect of demonstrating that it can be dangerous to write negative things about entertainment celebrities with deep pockets. Needless to say, with the president of the United States being who he is, it's hard to argue that that particular outcome is a societal benefit.
mmjaa 9y ago
Where did I say I don't believe in free speech? I absolutely believe in free speech. But if we project your idea further along - that the Fifth Estate should not have its rights impeded, at all, ever, by anyone - then, we get censorship of the people, who - unless they are anointed members of the Fifth Estate, will not have the same assumed powers, ever. So .. should only a certain 'class' of 'authority' in society have the ability to say what it wants? The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion. In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being, whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded. What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech?
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > So .. should only a certain 'class' of 'authority' in society have the ability to say what it wants? No. Everyone should. > The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion. There are principles though. > In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being That's why we have free speech. Using your logic, every atheist should be jailed because they hurt another human being. > whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded. No they weren't. That's the point. Anyways, the gawker case has nothing to do with privacy. It has everything to do with a billionaire deciding to take out gawker. I've never visited gawker. Don't really care about celebrity news. But I do believe in free speech. And you could say gawker is a terrible sight and still defend their free speech rights. > What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech? Free speech of course - especially when it concerns a PUBLIC figure. Here's the thing. NOTHING ILLEGAL happened despite the hordes here saying so. Hulk Hogan spoke about the sex tape LONG before gawker released it. FOOTAGE of it already had been released by TMZ and other sites. And the sex tape was acquired LEGALLY. https://thinkprogress.org/nobody-speak-documentary-eab86b547c31 https://thinkprogress.org/nobody-speak-documentary-eab86b547... Funny how TMZ and other sites are still around?
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    The Judge, who heard all the arguments you and I are ignoring/unaware of, did not agree with your assessment: Gawker was fined a hefty sum as punitive damages, and rather than pay it, they shuttered the company. Good thing they still have those rights, eh?
soneca 9y ago
I think the billionaire funding of lawyers for a lawsuit was not an attack to free-speech. Not even close. Not even suggestive of such a thing. I think it did not affect the free work of the press as the article suggests. I think it only affected media vehicles abusing its power to earn money at the expense of violating the privacy of an individual. I believe it is just like when the police arrests a thief robbing a store, it does not affect the right to come and go of the other customers. Not even the ones who are there complaining or protesting against the store.
optimuspaul 9y ago
It's a fine line we walk here. I do think that free speech is being curtailed, but I also would prefer a more civilized society where we can expect a certain level of respect given by default.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago

Their free speech isn't being curtailed. Free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you want without repercussions or consequences. People are down voting you here, I guess that means your free speech is being attacked as well?

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> Their free speech isn't being curtailed Really? Going out of business isn't having their speech curtailed? > Free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you want without repercussions or consequences. Sure... > People are down voting you here, I guess that means your free speech is being attacked as well? No. I'm still allowed to comment aren't I? You are able to read my comments aren't you? Certainly, even people like you can understand that having a billionaire purposefully sue you to bankrupt you is a tad different than downvotes.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  They went out of business because they did something wrong, and the judge agreed with the plaintiff that they should pay damages. Instead of paying those damages, the people behind Gawker decided - using their own free will - that they would be better off shuttering the site. None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up. They gambled that HH wouldn't be willing to fight them back, and that the money they made from all the hoo-haw would be enough to keep them in business - but such is life in the free world. Free to win, free to lose: the system is there for both sides of the coin.
  - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
    > They went out of business because they did something wrong No. They went out of business because they ran out of money to continue their legal defense. > and the judge agreed with the plaintiff that they should pay damages. No. Not the judge. The JURY. > Instead of paying those damages, the people behind Gawker decided - using their own free will - that they would be better off shuttering the site. They could have continue with the legal proceedings but they didn't have the funds. > None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up. Really? TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES published segments of the sex tape. TMZ and those sites are still around. I already provided PROOF. You can repeat the same thing over and over again. It isn't going to magically turn true. >but such is life in the free world. Not in a free world. In a billionaire's world. > the system is there for both sides of the coin. Apparently, it's for the billionaire's. Using your logic, TMZ and most of the sites would be out of business. After all, they published the sex tape images LONG BEFORE gawker. Okay? You can spin it anyway you like. You are anti-free speech advocate.
    - mmjaa 9y ago
      The JURY don't have any powers without THE JUDGE, whose ratification of the decision the jury made is the only means by which the law finds force in society. Without the Judiciary, no Jury. That's how the law works. Gawker gambled on their ability to stay in business while also committing vile acts of hatred using their right to free speech. They lost the gamble. They weren't told "you can't have free speech" - they were told "you caused this amount of damage, by exercising your rights" - and it was Gawker themselves who decided they could not take responsibility for that damage, so they shuttered themselves. Gawker lost because they flaunted the law, and in spite of having a court order to cease their attacks on an individual, continued regardless. TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES did not flaunt the law, nor were they required to - as they were not the targets of the suit. "You are anti-free speech": No, you are simply wrong. I'm pro-free speech. I just don't think that its the golden get-out-of-jail card that you think it should be. There are other rights granted us by society; when one set of rights is used to impinge upon another, that is a case for the legal system to administer. You are yet to demonstrate an understanding of this fact: You can say what you want, but if it causes me harm, I also can say what I want - and when a multi-million dollar company goes up against an individual, I'm very glad of the fact that these rights are adjudicated in court. >Apparently, it's for the billionaire's. Gawker=multi-million-dollar BUSINESS. HH=(admittedly wealthy) INDIVIDUAL. Just whose side are you on there, buddy?

Clubber 9y ago

It has nothing to do with free speech, it's freedom of the press. Freedom of the press has immense value. Publishing HH's sex tape and all the tabloid garbage, fake news, etc isn't one of them. It's a problem of unlimited freedom. We do curtail freedom of speech with slander laws, just as we curtail freedom of the press with libel laws. Amazingly, much of the free press in the US have made themselves a liability to society by obfuscating what is truth and what is fiction without giving a second thought as to how detrimental it is to the country. Think Alex Jones and Fox News types. Think weasel words like "people think," "It's been said that," etc. Those are cues that the topic is as best unsubstantiated, at worst an outright falsehood to inspire fear in people for ad revenue. There are similar types on the opposite of the political spectrum. These companies exist to profit off of fear, obfuscation and anger. The best way to protect yourself? Don't publish shitty tabloid articles. Don't publish shit sex tapes of fucking HH, as if anyone wants to see that. If you are in the business of pushing sleaze and ruining people's lives for profit, piss off. Journalism's purpose in our society is to tell the population what the powerful people / government don't want them to know. The reason this is useful is because a democratically elected population needs to know what's going on in order to make correct choices come election time. They need to know if their government is corrupt. People don't need to know that Theil is gay or what HH looks like having sex. That's not journalism, that's not useful, that's gossip. As for this R Kelly business? Everyone knows he's a weirdo. Take it to the authorities if you want to make a difference. If the authorities ignore it and he's actually doing something illegal? Then publish it to force their hand.

pcwalton 9y ago
> Amazingly, much of the free press in the US have made themselves a liability to society by obfuscating what is truth and what is fiction without giving a second thought as to how detrimental it is to the country. Think Alex Jones and Fox News types. And the climate nowadays is better than it ever has been for outlets like Infowars. Alex Jones is supported by the president of the United States. Yet it's problematic for people who write well-substantiated, honest pieces on powerful entertainment celebrities like R. Kelly. The Gawker case did absolutely nothing to hold Infowars to account. It instead had the effect of demonstrating that it can be dangerous to write negative things about entertainment celebrities with deep pockets. Needless to say, with the president of the United States being who he is, it's hard to argue that that particular outcome is a societal benefit.

mmjaa 9y ago

Where did I say I don't believe in free speech? I absolutely believe in free speech. But if we project your idea further along - that the Fifth Estate should not have its rights impeded, at all, ever, by anyone - then, we get censorship of the people, who - unless they are anointed members of the Fifth Estate, will not have the same assumed powers, ever. So .. should only a certain 'class' of 'authority' in society have the ability to say what it wants? The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion. In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being, whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded. What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech?

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> So .. should only a certain 'class' of 'authority' in society have the ability to say what it wants? No. Everyone should. > The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion. There are principles though. > In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being That's why we have free speech. Using your logic, every atheist should be jailed because they hurt another human being. > whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded. No they weren't. That's the point. Anyways, the gawker case has nothing to do with privacy. It has everything to do with a billionaire deciding to take out gawker. I've never visited gawker. Don't really care about celebrity news. But I do believe in free speech. And you could say gawker is a terrible sight and still defend their free speech rights. > What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech? Free speech of course - especially when it concerns a PUBLIC figure. Here's the thing. NOTHING ILLEGAL happened despite the hordes here saying so. Hulk Hogan spoke about the sex tape LONG before gawker released it. FOOTAGE of it already had been released by TMZ and other sites. And the sex tape was acquired LEGALLY. https://thinkprogress.org/nobody-speak-documentary-eab86b547c31 https://thinkprogress.org/nobody-speak-documentary-eab86b547... Funny how TMZ and other sites are still around?
- mmjaa 9y ago
  The Judge, who heard all the arguments you and I are ignoring/unaware of, did not agree with your assessment: Gawker was fined a hefty sum as punitive damages, and rather than pay it, they shuttered the company. Good thing they still have those rights, eh?

soneca 9y ago

I think the billionaire funding of lawyers for a lawsuit was not an attack to free-speech. Not even close. Not even suggestive of such a thing. I think it did not affect the free work of the press as the article suggests. I think it only affected media vehicles abusing its power to earn money at the expense of violating the privacy of an individual. I believe it is just like when the police arrests a thief robbing a store, it does not affect the right to come and go of the other customers. Not even the ones who are there complaining or protesting against the store.

optimuspaul 9y ago

It's a fine line we walk here. I do think that free speech is being curtailed, but I also would prefer a more civilized society where we can expect a certain level of respect given by default.