4 ms·
> “The ability to speak and not have every word you say get distorted, to have wrong ideas and then be able to correct them — these notions were powerfully unde
by muglug 9y ago
> “The ability to speak and not have every word you say get distorted, to have wrong ideas and then be able to correct them — these notions were powerfully undercut by Gawker.”
That's called reporting. The chief difference between Gawker and the New York Times is that Gawker took far greater risks for its size than the Grey Lady.
Thiel isn't even particularly unique – other billionaires (e.g. Sir James Goldsmith) have tried to kneecap publications they viewed as too disrespectful.
- lr4444lr 9y agoGawker - without permission - publicly aired a tape of an intimate moment from Hulk Hogan. That's borderline if not actually criminal in some jurisdictions. Gawker didn't just "take journalistic risks" - they glorified the pursuit of ratings over truth and accuracy, which cuts the very heart of what's making journalism sick.
- unchocked 9y agoAiring an intimate tape isn't contrary to the pursuit of truth and accuracy.
- radicaldreamer 9y agoWell, Gawker is based in the United States, where there's plenty of federal case law saying it is not illegal for a public figure. "Borderline" criminal isn't criminal and Gawker didn't operate from the United Kingdom or a jurisdiction where this isn't allowed, it operated in the United States, where the courts have been very clear on this.
- lr4444lr 9y agoIn some jurisdictions, it probably soon will be[0]. [0] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2725/amendment/a https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2725/amendm...
- Natsu 9y agoIt's not that simple. There's not much of a public interest angle in Hogan's sex life, so he still had a claim for invasion of privacy, same as anyone else who had non-consensual porn of them stolen and knowingly published. Also, Gawker was actually taken down for defying the court's orders. Even if they knew they were right, that was a dumb move. You sort that out on appeal, rather than defying the courts. That is absolutely illegal, regardless of whatever defenses they might have had for invasion of privacy. Gawker then compounded that by saying that they would have also posted stolen child pornography of anyone not under 4 in their deposition, as you can see on video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0p4V1-va00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0p4V1-va00 So you're not going to get much sympathy from normal people for a pedo-friendly, non-consensual porn publisher going down the toilet.
- wavefunction 9y agoThe reason Hulk Hogan didn't want the tape disseminated was because he was heard to be using racial epithets: n-gger.
- Natsu 9y agoI won't defend that, it was wrong. I would note that he apologized for that afterwards. Any normal person would not want non-consensual sex videos of them posted on the internet, even without that, however. That's the thing, though, more than one person can be wrong here. He said a hurtful word in the heat of the moment which is morally wrong, but not illegal. Gawker made a deliberate decision to put themselves above the law and defy a court order. It's not a big surprise which of these would lose in a court of law.
- muglug 9y ago> It's not that simple. There's not much of a public interest angle in Hogan's sex life, so he still had a claim for invasion of privacy I agree it was sufficiently murky to warrant some sort of monetary award. But hundreds of millions? You can't have it both ways – he's either a public figure, in which case some invasion of privacy is defendable, or he's a private individual, in which case that amount of money is in no way justified. > Gawker then compounded that by saying that they would have also posted stolen child pornography A Gawker writer made a stupid joke during a long deposition. Nothing in Gawker's history indicates they would have done so.
- eksu 9y agoI was listening to Mike Rowe's podcast this morning, episode 93, "As Long As It's Legal". It was about how just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. Just because something is legal also doesn't mean that they are taking "journalistic risks". The world is better without Gawker.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 9y agoYour overall point stands but since there’s unlikely to be a large market wanting to see this particular content they probably did it for strategic purposes to develop a reputation as edgy and risk taking in hopes of drivimg traffic to the rest of their site. Clever but it clearly backfired.