4 ms·

> The Judge, who heard all the arguments you and I are ignoring/unaware of, did not agree with your assessment: It wasn't the judge. It was the JURY. And judg

> The Judge, who heard all the arguments you and I are ignoring/unaware of, did not agree with your assessment: It wasn't the judge. It was the JURY. And judges aren't "infallible". As a matter of fact, appeals court ruled that the judge infringed on the free speech rights of gawker. "The injunction was quickly stayed on appeal, and was denied in 2014 by the appeals court, which ruled that under the circumstances it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment. Gawker tried to get Judge Campbell to dismiss the case based on that ruling, but the case went to trial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker As I said, I'm not a fan of gawker. But I'm for free speech. Even ugly, offensive, disgusting speech is FREE SPEECH. That's the purpose of free speech. To protect OFFENSIVE speech. You spam this sub claiming you are for free speech and yet all you have done so far is to peddle anti-free speech rhetoric.

mmjaa 9y ago
>You spam this sub claiming you are for free speech and yet all you have done so far is to peddle anti-free speech rhetoric. Nonsense. Nowhere have I said that Gawker shouldn't have had the right of free speech. Just that they should accept responsibility for the consequences of that speech. That they chose not to, just means they're unable to defend their own rights when faced with justice for the harm they actually did cause while exercising that right. I'm completely okay, for example, with you insulting me with your vitriol - as long as you're prepared to deal with the down votes in a responsible, adult-like manner. That isn't what happened with Gawker - they flaunted the law and demonstrated time and again that they thought they were above the law, "just because". Alas, all these rights are for naught if we don't have a social system in place to protect them.

mmjaa 9y ago

>You spam this sub claiming you are for free speech and yet all you have done so far is to peddle anti-free speech rhetoric. Nonsense. Nowhere have I said that Gawker shouldn't have had the right of free speech. Just that they should accept responsibility for the consequences of that speech. That they chose not to, just means they're unable to defend their own rights when faced with justice for the harm they actually did cause while exercising that right. I'm completely okay, for example, with you insulting me with your vitriol - as long as you're prepared to deal with the down votes in a responsible, adult-like manner. That isn't what happened with Gawker - they flaunted the law and demonstrated time and again that they thought they were above the law, "just because". Alas, all these rights are for naught if we don't have a social system in place to protect them.