5 ms·

That's the thing about free speech and press freedom, you are either for it or against it. The fact that you or I find Gawker's output distasteful is irrelevant

That's the thing about free speech and press freedom, you are either for it or against it. The fact that you or I find Gawker's output distasteful is irrelevant. On the illegallity point, that is a job for law enforcement, not corporations to decide.

nickff 6y ago
It's a bit unrealistic to expect your victims to lionize you in a television show.
- MinusGix 6y ago
  If it was having a person having to make a television show about someone they hated then I would agree, but corporations are _not_ people and so the reasoning does not apply.
doctor_eval 6y ago
It is absolutely a corporation's job to decide where it will spend its money. Cook didn't stop someone else making a show about Gawker, he stopped the company he runs from doing so. Huge difference.
- hhas01 6y ago
  Quite right: Apple is entitled to make (and not make) whatever products it chooses. Could’ve made a great, and timely, horrible-warts-n-all show about freedom of speech and those who’d manipulate it, but Cook is not one for such exuberant boldness. Hey, I’m fine with that: last thing I want is a desire to spend any more money on their overpriced tat. Guess it’s The People vs Larry Flynt for movie night tonight. Now where did I put the DVD…
- Hamuko 6y ago
  >Cook didn't stop someone else making a show about Gawker Yet. We are talking about Apple, which is blocking Microsoft's xCloud and Google's Stadia on iOS on the grounds that Microsoft and Google are not submitting each individual game for review. Both xCloud and Stadia are just glorified video players, where you are streaming video of a game being played in a server room and sending back controls. If streaming video game video can be subject for individual approval on iOS, I don't see streaming TV shows being subject to individual review that far off.
zpeti 6y ago
Free press doesn't mean you can slander people or publish intimate details about them without them having a civil case against you. Anyone can sue anyone pretty much, that's what a free country is about. It's not the government shutting down gawker, it's people who have money to sue them. If you think that's wrong then the government needs to change libel laws, that's easy. Similar to the section 230 issues right now, with enough political pressure you can change things. But gawker, they were asking for trouble, and got it. There's a reason lawyers recommend you don't do stuff that they did, and have done for decades if not centuries.
tshaddox 6y ago
It is painfully ironic if you think that “freedom of speech” means that no one can make any judgements whatsoever about any properties of any speech, except, of course, the government.
- pfortuny 6y ago
  The judiciary to be precise.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
False dichotomy; you as individual are perfectly in your right to feel like certain speech or press should be constrained (think hate speech, fake news).
pencilcode 6y ago
Freedom of speech is both a right and a responsibility. You are free to say what you want but you are also responsible for it. If you lie, slander, etc to make a profit then you should pay in some way. Tbh I don’t understand how people like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson get away with so much. Much of it blatant making things up / lying about people.
- lldbg 6y ago
  Being wrong shouldn't be illegal. If it was, news would not exist.
  - realityking 6y ago
    That's why good news organisations a) fact check and b) are careful to differentiate between fact and opinion As both of these protect you from defamation claims.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Being intentionally and maliciously wrong ... crosses multiple thresholds that merely being mistaken, confused, or mislead by sources does not. Credible media acknowledge their errors. The goal is seeking truth, not achieving perfection. Zero-tolerance for error is the worst form of censorship.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Most of politics involves creative and/or innovative interpretations of the truth. While in theory it would be an improvement to purge all the liers, in practice it is rare to get a substantial majority (60%+) of people to agree that an obvious lie is in fact a lie. And rarely because they have been mislead, one might suspect.
robert_foss 6y ago
It really isn't. It is emphatically not legal to say whatever you want.
bko 6y ago
Also important to note that Gawker was hosting revenge porn and defied a court order to remove the content, which is what ultimately brought them down > Gawker announced that it would not comply with the part of the court order requiring the removal of the post and associated commentary because it deemed the order "risible and contemptuous of centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence." Gawker removed the video itself, but linked readers to another site hosting the video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
rndgermandude 6y ago
>That's the thing about free speech and press freedom, you are either for it or against it. You can have a balance of press freedom and privacy of individuals, and even the US does in libel and slander laws, as well as e.g. (more recently) revenge porn legislation. Germany and other does European nations for example have a stronger claim to personal privacy rights of individuals than the US, based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights found that you cannot just publish any picture or piece of information you know but have to weigh the newsworthiness of information against the invasion of privacy such publication would mean. E.g. paparazzos stalking somebody to a funeral of a family member is usually not newsworthy enough to overcome the personal right to privacy. Writing about somebody being gay would cross a line unless that somebody was/is publicly vocal about "gay matters" such as gay marriage legislation, gay adoption rights etc. Publishing pics of the family, especially kids, of famous people is usually a no go - except when those family members themselves engage in newsworthy activity such as coming a crime. As it pertains to Gawker, they outed at least two high profile people as gay (Thiel, Cook), published a sex tape of Hulk Hogan and his partner, published nude paparazzo pics of various people including Justin Bieber and a slew of other things, while their sister site jezebel.com wrote pieces rather strongly condemning the publication of hacked nude pictures of Jennifer Lawrence and other in the "fappening". If only Gawker listened to Jezebel... Frankly, I like the European way, which is certainly not free of dangers, a lot better than the US way. But famous people are people too, and are entitled to at least some privacy.
- DavidSJ 6y ago
  You can have a balance of press freedom and privacy of individuals, and even the US does in libel and slander laws, as well as e.g. (more recently) revenge porn legislation. The issue here, though, is not whether Gawker's behavior should have been protected speech, but whether it's concerning for a documentary about Gawker to be canned by a studio controlled by a large company which had another aspect of its business harmed by the behavior of the subject of that documentary.
  - adriancr 6y ago
    Media should not be controlled by large entities but you can't say free speech for documentary producers but not for owners. Deciding not to continue the documentary is Apple's right to free speech. If anything you can push for legislators to apply anti monopoly laws to media and have companies split off.

nickff 6y ago

It's a bit unrealistic to expect your victims to lionize you in a television show.

MinusGix 6y ago
If it was having a person having to make a television show about someone they hated then I would agree, but corporations are _not_ people and so the reasoning does not apply.

doctor_eval 6y ago

It is absolutely a corporation's job to decide where it will spend its money. Cook didn't stop someone else making a show about Gawker, he stopped the company he runs from doing so. Huge difference.

hhas01 6y ago
Quite right: Apple is entitled to make (and not make) whatever products it chooses. Could’ve made a great, and timely, horrible-warts-n-all show about freedom of speech and those who’d manipulate it, but Cook is not one for such exuberant boldness. Hey, I’m fine with that: last thing I want is a desire to spend any more money on their overpriced tat. Guess it’s The People vs Larry Flynt for movie night tonight. Now where did I put the DVD…
Hamuko 6y ago
>Cook didn't stop someone else making a show about Gawker Yet. We are talking about Apple, which is blocking Microsoft's xCloud and Google's Stadia on iOS on the grounds that Microsoft and Google are not submitting each individual game for review. Both xCloud and Stadia are just glorified video players, where you are streaming video of a game being played in a server room and sending back controls. If streaming video game video can be subject for individual approval on iOS, I don't see streaming TV shows being subject to individual review that far off.

zpeti 6y ago

Free press doesn't mean you can slander people or publish intimate details about them without them having a civil case against you. Anyone can sue anyone pretty much, that's what a free country is about. It's not the government shutting down gawker, it's people who have money to sue them. If you think that's wrong then the government needs to change libel laws, that's easy. Similar to the section 230 issues right now, with enough political pressure you can change things. But gawker, they were asking for trouble, and got it. There's a reason lawyers recommend you don't do stuff that they did, and have done for decades if not centuries.

tshaddox 6y ago

It is painfully ironic if you think that “freedom of speech” means that no one can make any judgements whatsoever about any properties of any speech, except, of course, the government.

pfortuny 6y ago
The judiciary to be precise.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

False dichotomy; you as individual are perfectly in your right to feel like certain speech or press should be constrained (think hate speech, fake news).

pencilcode 6y ago

Freedom of speech is both a right and a responsibility. You are free to say what you want but you are also responsible for it. If you lie, slander, etc to make a profit then you should pay in some way. Tbh I don’t understand how people like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson get away with so much. Much of it blatant making things up / lying about people.

lldbg 6y ago
Being wrong shouldn't be illegal. If it was, news would not exist.
- realityking 6y ago
  That's why good news organisations a) fact check and b) are careful to differentiate between fact and opinion As both of these protect you from defamation claims.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Being intentionally and maliciously wrong ... crosses multiple thresholds that merely being mistaken, confused, or mislead by sources does not. Credible media acknowledge their errors. The goal is seeking truth, not achieving perfection. Zero-tolerance for error is the worst form of censorship.
roenxi 6y ago
Most of politics involves creative and/or innovative interpretations of the truth. While in theory it would be an improvement to purge all the liers, in practice it is rare to get a substantial majority (60%+) of people to agree that an obvious lie is in fact a lie. And rarely because they have been mislead, one might suspect.

robert_foss 6y ago

It really isn't. It is emphatically not legal to say whatever you want.

bko 6y ago

Also important to note that Gawker was hosting revenge porn and defied a court order to remove the content, which is what ultimately brought them down > Gawker announced that it would not comply with the part of the court order requiring the removal of the post and associated commentary because it deemed the order "risible and contemptuous of centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence." Gawker removed the video itself, but linked readers to another site hosting the video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker

rndgermandude 6y ago

>That's the thing about free speech and press freedom, you are either for it or against it. You can have a balance of press freedom and privacy of individuals, and even the US does in libel and slander laws, as well as e.g. (more recently) revenge porn legislation. Germany and other does European nations for example have a stronger claim to personal privacy rights of individuals than the US, based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights found that you cannot just publish any picture or piece of information you know but have to weigh the newsworthiness of information against the invasion of privacy such publication would mean. E.g. paparazzos stalking somebody to a funeral of a family member is usually not newsworthy enough to overcome the personal right to privacy. Writing about somebody being gay would cross a line unless that somebody was/is publicly vocal about "gay matters" such as gay marriage legislation, gay adoption rights etc. Publishing pics of the family, especially kids, of famous people is usually a no go - except when those family members themselves engage in newsworthy activity such as coming a crime. As it pertains to Gawker, they outed at least two high profile people as gay (Thiel, Cook), published a sex tape of Hulk Hogan and his partner, published nude paparazzo pics of various people including Justin Bieber and a slew of other things, while their sister site jezebel.com wrote pieces rather strongly condemning the publication of hacked nude pictures of Jennifer Lawrence and other in the "fappening". If only Gawker listened to Jezebel... Frankly, I like the European way, which is certainly not free of dangers, a lot better than the US way. But famous people are people too, and are entitled to at least some privacy.

DavidSJ 6y ago
You can have a balance of press freedom and privacy of individuals, and even the US does in libel and slander laws, as well as e.g. (more recently) revenge porn legislation. The issue here, though, is not whether Gawker's behavior should have been protected speech, but whether it's concerning for a documentary about Gawker to be canned by a studio controlled by a large company which had another aspect of its business harmed by the behavior of the subject of that documentary.
- adriancr 6y ago
  Media should not be controlled by large entities but you can't say free speech for documentary producers but not for owners. Deciding not to continue the documentary is Apple's right to free speech. If anything you can push for legislators to apply anti monopoly laws to media and have companies split off.