7 ms·
What Gawker did to Hulk Hogan was illegal and unethical. And when they were told to take the video down by a judge they refused to do so. Gawker lost because th
by kentm 8y ago
What Gawker did to Hulk Hogan was illegal and unethical. And when they were told to take the video down by a judge they refused to do so. Gawker lost because they were in the wrong and were destroyed because they refused to just take the L
- cwkoss 8y agoIts OK the celebrate the ends while also criticizing the morality of the means
- kentm 8y agoMy remark was more about how often this case is trotted out as setting a concerning precedent. Gawker basically acted like jackasses and blew their own leg off, and Thiel was just there to make sure they didn't miss. It's hard for me to see that as setting a morally troubling precedent, and it doesn't fit neatly into the narrative of "Billionaire uses money to destroy enemies" unless you omit most of the relevant details. Presumably they could have avoided the entire situation by not being shady and breaking the law. And the rich having better access to legal representation is not something that was changed in any way with regards to this case.
- sidlls 8y agoI took it differently: it's an indictment of a system in which a person without Thiel's means is much less likely to obtain justice.
- meko 8y agoWhat happened to freedom of the press?
- saagarjha 8y agoFreedom of the press does not give you a free pass to violate people's right to privacy.
- writepub 8y agoThe press doesn't have the freedom to blackmail and do illegal biddings for powerful people, and destroy lives when lives aren't newsworthy.
- bitwize 8y agoUnless you post pro-Trump memes critical of CNN to Reddit, in which case CNN knows where you live, and whether or not CNN decides to publish that information depends very much on whether you apologize for your hateful stunt like a good boy.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- apocalyptic0n3 8y agoFreedom of the Press does not allow for breaking the law and _especially_ does not allow them to disobey a court order after their illegal activities are litigated (and, especially _especially_ does not allow them to flaunt that disobedience in the public). What Gawker did was not protected by the first amendment, nor should it be. That being said, I also don't believe what Thiel did was ethical or just. It's a scary prospect.
- deegles 8y agoMaybe reality is a bit more nuanced than “the press can publish anything without consequences.”
- tomhoward 8y agoAny reasonable person understands that freedom hits limits when it unjustly impinges on other people's freedoms. Can you name an instance where a person or body is entitled to completely unfettered freedom, regardless of harmful external consequences? The Golden Rule is one of the most ancient and foundational principles we have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
- ousta 8y agogawker deserved everything it happened and more. https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1444591425984.jpg https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1444591425984.jpg
- kbutler 8y agoBut the indictment (pun intended) of the legal system is that it took a billionaire's $10 million to see that justice was done.