4 ms·
Well, not exactly. The law is not perfect. It's enforced and deliberated by humans. If someone is guilty, it doesn't mean they're objectively guilty, as thou
by davesque 9y ago
Well, not exactly. The law is not perfect. It's enforced and deliberated by humans. If someone is guilty, it doesn't mean they're objectively guilty, as though such a thing even really exists. It means someone brought and argued a case against them and a judge or jury (one person or a small handful of people) agreed with the argument. We may like to think that the set of rules which leads to a judge or jury's decision is logical but it's far from it.
So I don't buy into the notion that, simply because Gawker was found guilty by a court of law, we should not consider their side of things.
- ng12 9y agoDid you actually read about the case or do you just follow the "Peter Thiel is bad" doctrine? I feel like when you're defending revenge porn you've lost touch a bit. They literally published an article about how they're ignoring a court order over the matter: http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
- davesque 9y agoYou're right. In principle, my comment has nothing to do with the case. I was responding to the parent posters' suggestions that, simply because Gawker broke the law, no one should come to their defense, which I was saying are short-sighted because they suppose that the law is somehow beyond reproach, which it isn't.