|
Lockback posted:It totally justifies it. Even if Gawker did nothing to Thiel, helping someone sue the poo poo out of a company that practiced illegal tabloid tactics is justified on its own. There has long been a balance between privacy and free speech and this doesn't come anywhere close to the line. Gawker had several opportunities to back down and thought they were cleverly getting around a court order. gently caress em, assuming Thiel has a percentage interest in the damages this was both a smart business move and morally justified. I dislike a lot of what Gawker does but I'm slightly more uncomfortable with the rich and powerful suing media out of existence
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:The most infuriating part of Gawker was how they would constantly "call out" other publications for being clickbait muckrakers as if the Gawker conglomerate was anything other than that. Yeah, Gawker's hypocrisy is what bothers me - they'll self-righteously moralize in one story and massively violate someone's privacy in the next.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I dislike a lot of what Gawker does but I'm slightly more uncomfortable with the rich and powerful suing media out of existence Yeah I could do without Gawker but the whole concept is frustrating. Seems like there should be a better way to handle this type of thing but hell if I see any way to get there from where we are now.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I dislike a lot of what Gawker does but I'm slightly more uncomfortable with the rich and powerful suing media out of existence They're well within their rights to do it. They're being sued in civil court for a series of illegal actions. This isn't some 'chilling effect' or anything. Gawker didn't toe the line, they lept over it with glee and acted like complete dicks when they did.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
DJExile posted:They're well within their rights to do it. Of course they are. Gawker's strategy of trying to run Hulk out of money when they didn't know he had a backer is equally as frustrating though.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:Of course they are. Gawker's strategy of trying to run Hulk out of money when they didn't know he had a backer is equally as frustrating though. Yeah to be honest I'm going to be pretty happy regardless of who comes out of this ultimately pissed off
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
DJExile posted:They're well within their rights to do it. They're being sued in civil court for a series of illegal actions. This isn't some 'chilling effect' or anything. Gawker didn't toe the line, they lept over it with glee and acted like complete dicks when they did. I wouldn't really argue, but that doesn't mean it's right. It likely wasn't illegal for Gawker to out Thiel in the first place, and I don't agree with that, either. I'd be fine with Hogan suing on his own behalf, but from what I understand some of the legal actions taken weren't even in his own best interest. Gawker's a little unique because of their size and the type of coverage they do, but as media companies get more vulnerable in general it's a blueprint I'm worried others can copy.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I dislike a lot of what Gawker does but I'm slightly more uncomfortable with the rich and powerful suing media out of existence I dunno, this isn't burying Gawker in legal hell, it's backing up a guy who had a legitimate claim. I do think the damages get reduced though, and that is probably the right thing to do. It's one thing to protect the media when they are truly chasing something that benefits the public good but this is pretty clearly not that.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Lockback posted:I dunno, this isn't burying Gawker in legal hell, it's backing up a guy who had a legitimate claim. I do think the damages get reduced though, and that is probably the right thing to do. The same lawyer is bringing lawsuits from two other clients with apparently less solid cases. It's pretty clearly about burying Gawker in legal hell
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Lol if you guys a) think that Hogan's case is legit and B) are cool with theil backing Hogan financially. Gawker sucks rear end but this was a bullshit decision and gawker got hometowned hard lmao
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Pete Thiel is a massively wealthy self-loathing gay libertarian, almost by definition anything he's involved with that also involves the government or a government process on the other side will see him on the wrong side of things.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
KFBR392 posted:Pete Thiel is a massively wealthy self-loathing gay libertarian, almost by definition anything he's involved with that also involves the government or a government process on the other side will see him on the wrong side of things. It's cool that you hate gay people and all, but please show a little more respect for the righteous cause of Hulkamania
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
KFBR392 posted:Pete Thiel is a massively wealthy self-loathing gay libertarian, almost by definition anything he's involved with that also involves the government or a government process on the other side will see him on the wrong side of things. Billionaires suing publications and journalists into oblivion is extremely hosed up and is becoming more common. Especially because the point is not to win, its to make the journalists' life hell, deplete their assets, and make it less likely they'll try to hold billionaires accountable in the future. See this. This suit should've been settled ages ago for Hogan's actual damages, but it wasn't, because the point was to destroy Gawker for a completely unrelated thing. E: Forgot this one.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Gawker sucks, Hulk Hogan also sucks I wish Hogan won, but got $0 in damages
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
We exist in a world where billionaires shouldn't play god like this but we also exist in a world where Gawker extremely deserves this
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Peter Thiel is the eminence grise behind all of Hulkamania's many successes, and now journalists are too scared to expose the truth.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Peter Thiel killing Gawker is a sign of a society that lets the rich get away with anything they want and chill speech and thats bad but drat if I'm not going to enjoy it because Gawker outed people against their will and that's scummy as poo poo (which even Gawker agrees with given their reaction to the Grantland piece that outed a transgender woman)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I dislike a lot of what Gawker does but I'm slightly more uncomfortable with the rich and powerful suing media out of existence
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Peter Thiel killing Gawker is a sign of a society that lets the rich get away with anything they want and chill speech and thats bad Considering Thiel was one of the people they outed I hope he torches the gently caress out of them
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Peter Thiel killing Gawker is a sign of a society that lets the rich get away with anything they want and chill speech and thats bad outing private figures is bad. outing public figures that contribute to and move the levers of power for politicians that are anti-gay is good and cool
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:Well then hey don't out private citizens, especially if they have truckloads of money. It might come back to bite you in the rear end. peter thiel is not a private citizen under any reasonable legal definition
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Copernic posted:
1000000000x this Thiel set this up and his fancy-rear end lawyers home-courted Gawker down in FL. Gawker's legal team did a decent enough job but there's only so much you can do in a situaiton like that the funny part is that gawker took PE style investment to fund the defense so this is a bunch of rich VC and PE assholes going at each other under the backdrop of Cuckamania running wild inside the wife of a dude named BUbba the Love Sponge loving lmao this world is loving funny
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
gently caress Gawker, but, gently caress Peter Thiel even more, is my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
KFBR392 posted:outing private figures is bad. outing public figures that contribute to and move the levers of power for politicians that are anti-gay is good and cool what about outing an executive at another publisher
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
KFBR392 posted:peter thiel is not a private citizen under any reasonable legal definition If he doesn't have any rights because he's chose to influence people and use his money and power, why the gently caress should Gawker have any rights given that they influence people and use their money and power ?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
The Ringer is launching next week.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Whitlock was shockingly gracious about the launch of The Undefeated
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Marquis de Pyro posted:If he doesn't have any rights because he's chose to influence people and use his money and power, why the gently caress should Gawker have any rights given that they influence people and use their money and power This is a p bad post dude. Gawker doesn't have any privacy rights. And it's a press entity. exploding mummy posted:what about outing an executive at another publisher That was not good IMHO but I don't know the full circumstances of why they chose to run that. But if that one went to court there's a high likelihood that publisher is deemed a private figure, imho.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Reminder: http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-couldnt-vote
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
peter thiel is a weird dude. i saw him give a talk where he praised karl marx endlessly and said that most of what he wrote is true. the main focus was the idea that capitalism always produces markets that end in monopoly. thiel agreed with this but thinks that just means that investors and business folks should only work on or invest in things that they can monopolize because that's how to make money. afterwards he did a book signing and i asked him if he could make it out to my old lady and his little gay dwarf helper looking guy said "no special requests!!" and moved in between me and thiel like i was going to attack him or something. but thiel just said "what's her name" and did it. he told people to pitch him a fifteen second idea that sounds crazy but is true so i told him that i get super hungry when I sneeze a bunch from allergies and he said "I'm not sure how you can make money on that." anyway that's my Peter thiel story. he has really dead eyes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Peter Thiel literally said this lmao posted:The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
We get it dude you don't like Peter Thiel
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
For people defending Peter Thiel: What is to stop other rich people from pressuring journalists/publications with lawsuits until they don't print something?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:We get it dude you don't like Peter Thiel To be fair that is a funny quote
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Ungratek posted:For people defending Peter Thiel: What is to stop other rich people from pressuring journalists/publications with lawsuits until they don't print something? Find someone who is richer than they are to back you in court.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Ungratek posted:For people defending Peter Thiel: What is to stop other rich people from pressuring journalists/publications with lawsuits until they don't print something?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Gawker didn't out Peter Thiel. People knew he was gay. If they had blown the lid off him being gay, he'd have sued them for it. He had no case against them which is why he waited for this Hogan thing to come up.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
And even if they did blow him out of the closet he was and is a wealthy and politically active public figure and if you remember what was going on in the right wing circles back in 2007-2008 actually outing his stupid rear end would have been not only legal but just. He's a right-wing dipshits who got lucky and good on two bets, and he's butthurt about gawker covering silicon valley in a halfway critical fashion, as opposed to pando-loving-daily or some other BC backed "news" entity. They ripped his dumbass hedge fund that lost like 7bn a new one, that would make me mad too hehehe
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Ungratek posted:For people defending Peter Thiel: What is to stop other rich people from pressuring journalists/publications with lawsuits until they don't print something? First they went after media that were outing businessmen as gay and releasing people's sex tapes, and I said nothing because I thought that was really scummy, and they were pretty clearly beyond first amendment protections. Then they went after media that was responsibly reporting, and I said something along with lots of other people because that is a different situation. Then no one came after me because the line was pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
loving lmao if you think Peter Thiel was outed by Gawker and loving double lmao if you think he shouldn't have been called out on being a big fat loving gay libertarian hypocrite in 2007 in California. We live in a world where Sheldon Adelson bought the LVRJ, Dan Snyder runs the DC media market and is trying to steer the convo nationally on his team's dumb name, and you are gonna defend the guy who is financing an attack on a tabloid that roasted his dumbshit valley adventures and dangerous political activities because it also reported a gay thing everyone in the valley knew at the time.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 21:28
|
|