3 ms·

Here’s a more succinct and accurate take on what happened to Gawker: Gawker always said it was in the business of publishing true stories. Here is one last tru

by CPLX 5y ago

Here’s a more succinct and accurate take on what happened to Gawker: Gawker always said it was in the business of publishing true stories. Here is one last true story: You live in a country where a billionaire can put a publication out of business. A billionaire can pick off an individual writer and leave that person penniless and without legal protection. If you want to write stories that might anger a billionaire, you need to work for another billionaire yourself, or for a billion-dollar corporation. The law will not protect you. There is no freedom in this world but power and money.

linksnapzz 5y ago
Succinct, obtuse, self-pitying and dissembling. Probably a Gawker writer. If one goes around committing tortious invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress, one will get sued for it eventually, and possibly lose in court. Yes, even if you call yourself a "journalist" while doing so. Yes, even if your targets for abuse are icky-poo wrongthinkers like Thiel and Bollea, who shouldn't have access to legal remedies because darn it, they have declasse opinions contra to the "speak truth to power" crowd. Getting sued is getting off easy, and deep down Denton & co. knew that losing in court was the worst thing that could happen to them-it wasn't like they embarrassed John Gotti or Chapo Guzman, or someone else whose retaliation would involve semtex and garrottes.
- CPLX 5y ago
  Yes you’re correct, being crushed by the unjust power of wealth is mildly superior to being bombed or strangled by serial murderers and career criminals. Insightful, that.
  - linksnapzz 5y ago
    Had Gawker been sued into oblivion by one of the many, many non-wealthy that they humiliated for the lulz, would you be less upset? Or are you staking out a pro-libel position in general?
    - CPLX 5y ago
      That scenario is not plausible. Which precisely illustrates the original point.

by CPLX 5y ago

linksnapzz 5y ago

Succinct, obtuse, self-pitying and dissembling. Probably a Gawker writer. If one goes around committing tortious invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress, one will get sued for it eventually, and possibly lose in court. Yes, even if you call yourself a "journalist" while doing so. Yes, even if your targets for abuse are icky-poo wrongthinkers like Thiel and Bollea, who shouldn't have access to legal remedies because darn it, they have declasse opinions contra to the "speak truth to power" crowd. Getting sued is getting off easy, and deep down Denton & co. knew that losing in court was the worst thing that could happen to them-it wasn't like they embarrassed John Gotti or Chapo Guzman, or someone else whose retaliation would involve semtex and garrottes.

CPLX 5y ago
Yes you’re correct, being crushed by the unjust power of wealth is mildly superior to being bombed or strangled by serial murderers and career criminals. Insightful, that.
- linksnapzz 5y ago
  Had Gawker been sued into oblivion by one of the many, many non-wealthy that they humiliated for the lulz, would you be less upset? Or are you staking out a pro-libel position in general?
  - CPLX 5y ago
    That scenario is not plausible. Which precisely illustrates the original point.