4 ms·

Gawker published a private sex tape (Hulk Hogan's) without permission on the grounds that it is "news" in order to make its publication legal. I can't see how a

Gawker published a private sex tape (Hulk Hogan's) without permission on the grounds that it is "news" in order to make its publication legal. I can't see how anyone could say Gawker had the moral high ground, they were a despicable organization whose only business model was publishing private information/revenge porn for profit

guelo 7y ago
If you don't support the right of others to say things you don't like then you don't support free speech.
- raisedbyninjas 7y ago
  Even libertarians don't often expand free speech to include doxing.
  - guelo 7y ago
    As if a celebrity sex tape is so much worse then attacking the core of democracy by deliberately spreading disinformation.
    - raisedbyninjas 7y ago
      Thiel doesn't care about Hogan's sex tape. He cares that Gawker outed his sexuality. With Gawker and Facebook he cares about information as it affects him personally.
      - guelo 7y ago
        Right, any talk of principles is a smoke screen, the only thing they care about is power.
jonny_eh 7y ago
The discussion isn't about Hulk Hogan v Gawker, it's Peter Thiel v Gawker, via Hulk Hogan. Thiel funded Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker, for personal revenge.
- googlebigdream 7y ago
  It wasn't personal revenge it was personal information dummy. Could have been sensitive to him for any reason. He was outed as a gay
- defen 7y ago
  The current societal standard seems to be "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences". I don't think it's possible to give a principled reason why "Peter Thiel funding a lawsuit" (which he won) is bad, but "advocating for someone to be fired for having a wrong/bad opinion" is good.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Personal revenge for outing him as gay while he was physically in Saudi Arabia, IIRC. Which I'd consider to be only half a step down from a murder attempt if it happened to me. (Of course, I'm not a billionaire, so there's a far higher chance that I'd actually end up dead in such a situation. But still)
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    It was a business meeting too -- great way of tanking that meeting. But yeah, being gay in Iran or Saudi has serious consequences. Plus Gawker, posing a progressive media outlet via organs like Jezebel, shouldn't be airing anyone dirty laundry like that -- and then they did, repeatedly.
NathanKP 7y ago
To be clear I don't think Gawker has the moral high ground either. There is no monopoly here on bad morals. It's possible for Gawker to be an asshole here as well as for Peter Thiel to be an asshole. I bring it up merely to show that Peter Theil doesn't have any problem censoring stuff he doesn't like. Therefore it is pretty suspicious and two faced when he says he thinks that Facebook shouldn't censor ads.
Gunax 7y ago
News organisations should not be legally bound to take the moral high ground. While we can debate about what they should have done (and I agree with you in this case) it's difficult to write laws to define what constitutes a moral vs immoral publication or what is news-worthy. Consider what would have happened in they had a Clinton-Lewinsky sex tape. Could they have released that to refute Bill Clinton's denials? It quickly gets very difficult, and I would rather have a totally free press than one that has to worry about running afoul of moral news laws.

guelo 7y ago

If you don't support the right of others to say things you don't like then you don't support free speech.

raisedbyninjas 7y ago
Even libertarians don't often expand free speech to include doxing.
- guelo 7y ago
  As if a celebrity sex tape is so much worse then attacking the core of democracy by deliberately spreading disinformation.
  - raisedbyninjas 7y ago
    Thiel doesn't care about Hogan's sex tape. He cares that Gawker outed his sexuality. With Gawker and Facebook he cares about information as it affects him personally.
    - guelo 7y ago
      Right, any talk of principles is a smoke screen, the only thing they care about is power.

jonny_eh 7y ago

The discussion isn't about Hulk Hogan v Gawker, it's Peter Thiel v Gawker, via Hulk Hogan. Thiel funded Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker, for personal revenge.

googlebigdream 7y ago
It wasn't personal revenge it was personal information dummy. Could have been sensitive to him for any reason. He was outed as a gay
defen 7y ago
The current societal standard seems to be "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences". I don't think it's possible to give a principled reason why "Peter Thiel funding a lawsuit" (which he won) is bad, but "advocating for someone to be fired for having a wrong/bad opinion" is good.
DuskStar 7y ago
Personal revenge for outing him as gay while he was physically in Saudi Arabia, IIRC. Which I'd consider to be only half a step down from a murder attempt if it happened to me. (Of course, I'm not a billionaire, so there's a far higher chance that I'd actually end up dead in such a situation. But still)
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  It was a business meeting too -- great way of tanking that meeting. But yeah, being gay in Iran or Saudi has serious consequences. Plus Gawker, posing a progressive media outlet via organs like Jezebel, shouldn't be airing anyone dirty laundry like that -- and then they did, repeatedly.

NathanKP 7y ago

To be clear I don't think Gawker has the moral high ground either. There is no monopoly here on bad morals. It's possible for Gawker to be an asshole here as well as for Peter Thiel to be an asshole. I bring it up merely to show that Peter Theil doesn't have any problem censoring stuff he doesn't like. Therefore it is pretty suspicious and two faced when he says he thinks that Facebook shouldn't censor ads.

Gunax 7y ago

News organisations should not be legally bound to take the moral high ground. While we can debate about what they should have done (and I agree with you in this case) it's difficult to write laws to define what constitutes a moral vs immoral publication or what is news-worthy. Consider what would have happened in they had a Clinton-Lewinsky sex tape. Could they have released that to refute Bill Clinton's denials? It quickly gets very difficult, and I would rather have a totally free press than one that has to worry about running afoul of moral news laws.