I'd like the Fifth Estate to have its powers curtailed by the people, who are truly the ones to suffer at the hands of all of these levels of irresponsibility.
The ONLY story here is that thiel ( who doesn't believe women deserve the right to vote ) decided to use his wealth to take down a news organization. There is a dedicated group here who are pushing a lot of lies and trying to frame the debate one way.
You can't say you are for free speech and defend thiel/hogan.
Another interesting tidbit, which is a more important and relevant tidbit than anything you mention:
Thiel and Hogan won the case in court.
They didn't just buy a verdict. They did not abuse the legal system to bully a settlement out of a helpless individual. Both parties had well-funded legal arguments presented in front of a judge and jury. Gawker lost. The jury looked at the facts and Gawker's own testimony and saw a reckless, malicious publisher that would cheerfully disregard any ethical standard they could in the pursuit of clicks and chaos.
Yes. It's a case where you ask 12 people to decide the fate of your existence.
> They didn't just buy a verdict.
They didn't have to.
> Both parties had well-funded legal arguments presented in front of a judge and jury. Gawker lost.
They didn't "lose". They could have kept going with the legal proceedings if they had the money.
> The jury looked at the facts and Gawker's own testimony and saw a reckless, malicious publisher that would cheerfully disregard any ethical standard they could in the pursuit of clicks and chaos.
Have you been a juror? Have you ever been sued?
There is a reason why most lawsuits are settled. Because jurors are highly UNRELIABLE.
Thiel/Hogan had nothing to lose with the verdict. Gawker had everything to lose.
It's why PATENT TROLLS sue companies. Because it is far easier for companies to settle suits than continue with the legal proceedings.
Here's a hint. If thiel really wanted to, he could sue hacker news and bankrupt it.
> malicious publisher that would cheerfully disregard any ethical standard they could in the pursuit of clicks and chaos.
Oh god... So many anti-free speech people here. It's no longer surprising.
I'm a die hard social libertarian and free speech advocate. Your (and the medias) attempts to frame this as a free speech issue is comical, bordering on delusional.
If you want to defend free speech, you'd be better served talking about what's currently going on at college campuses.
It has nothing to do with free speech, it's freedom of the press. Freedom of the press has immense value. Publishing HH's sex tape and all the tabloid garbage, fake news, etc isn't one of them. It's a problem of unlimited freedom. We do curtail freedom of speech with slander laws, just as we curtail freedom of the press with libel laws.
Amazingly, much of the free press in the US have made themselves a liability to society by obfuscating what is truth and what is fiction without giving a second thought as to how detrimental it is to the country. Think Alex Jones and Fox News types. Think weasel words like "people think," "It's been said that," etc. Those are cues that the topic is as best unsubstantiated, at worst an outright falsehood to inspire fear in people for ad revenue. There are similar types on the opposite of the political spectrum. These companies exist to profit off of fear, obfuscation and anger.
The best way to protect yourself? Don't publish shitty tabloid articles. Don't publish shit sex tapes of fucking HH, as if anyone wants to see that. If you are in the business of pushing sleaze and ruining people's lives for profit, piss off.
Journalism's purpose in our society is to tell the population what the powerful people / government don't want them to know. The reason this is useful is because a democratically elected population needs to know what's going on in order to make correct choices come election time. They need to know if their government is corrupt. People don't need to know that Theil is gay or what HH looks like having sex. That's not journalism, that's not useful, that's gossip.
As for this R Kelly business? Everyone knows he's a weirdo. Take it to the authorities if you want to make a difference. If the authorities ignore it and he's actually doing something illegal? Then publish it to force their hand.
> Amazingly, much of the free press in the US have made themselves a liability to society by obfuscating what is truth and what is fiction without giving a second thought as to how detrimental it is to the country. Think Alex Jones and Fox News types.
And the climate nowadays is better than it ever has been for outlets like Infowars. Alex Jones is supported by the president of the United States. Yet it's problematic for people who write well-substantiated, honest pieces on powerful entertainment celebrities like R. Kelly.
The Gawker case did absolutely nothing to hold Infowars to account. It instead had the effect of demonstrating that it can be dangerous to write negative things about entertainment celebrities with deep pockets. Needless to say, with the president of the United States being who he is, it's hard to argue that that particular outcome is a societal benefit.
>It instead had the effect of demonstrating that it can be dangerous to write negative things about entertainment celebrities with deep pockets.
From what I understand, Gawker's two big follies lead to their downfall was:
1. Outing Peter Thiel as gay. Sleazy IMO.
2. Publishing a HH sex tape that was stolen and recorded without HH's permission. (according to HH).
They didn't get in trouble for #1, though it's pretty damn sleazy. They did get in trouble for #2, which they absolutely should have. I would think if some publication published the stolen JLaw pics, they would get sued out of existence too.
They didn't get in trouble for writing negative things about entertainment celebrities. They got in trouble for publishing stolen porn. Also, they would have gotten away with it because HH was running out of money for the lawsuit. That's where Thiel came in. What we almost got was a news publication being able to publish stolen porn because they have deep pockets.
FWIW, the Fairness Doctrine repeal in the 80s is what lead to all these airbags spewing anger for ad revenue. That's an actual free speech issue.
Where did I say I don't believe in free speech? I absolutely believe in free speech.
But if we project your idea further along - that the Fifth Estate should not have its rights impeded, at all, ever, by anyone - then, we get censorship of the people, who - unless they are anointed members of the Fifth Estate, will not have the same assumed powers, ever.
So .. should only a certain 'class' of 'authority' in society have the ability to say what it wants?
The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion.
In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being, whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded.
What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech?
> So .. should only a certain 'class' of 'authority' in society have the ability to say what it wants?
No. Everyone should.
> The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion.
There are principles though.
> In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being
That's why we have free speech. Using your logic, every atheist should be jailed because they hurt another human being.
> whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded.
No they weren't. That's the point.
Anyways, the gawker case has nothing to do with privacy. It has everything to do with a billionaire deciding to take out gawker.
I've never visited gawker. Don't really care about celebrity news. But I do believe in free speech.
And you could say gawker is a terrible sight and still defend their free speech rights.
> What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech?
Free speech of course - especially when it concerns a PUBLIC figure.
Here's the thing. NOTHING ILLEGAL happened despite the hordes here saying so. Hulk Hogan spoke about the sex tape LONG before gawker released it. FOOTAGE of it already had been released by TMZ and other sites. And the sex tape was acquired LEGALLY.
The Judge, who heard all the arguments you and I are ignoring/unaware of, did not agree with your assessment: Gawker was fined a hefty sum as punitive damages, and rather than pay it, they shuttered the company. Good thing they still have those rights, eh?
> The Judge, who heard all the arguments you and I are ignoring/unaware of, did not agree with your assessment:
It wasn't the judge. It was the JURY.
And judges aren't "infallible".
As a matter of fact, appeals court ruled that the judge infringed on the free speech rights of gawker.
"The injunction was quickly stayed on appeal, and was denied in 2014 by the appeals court, which ruled that under the circumstances it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment. Gawker tried to get Judge Campbell to dismiss the case based on that ruling, but the case went to trial."
As I said, I'm not a fan of gawker. But I'm for free speech. Even ugly, offensive, disgusting speech is FREE SPEECH. That's the purpose of free speech. To protect OFFENSIVE speech.
You spam this sub claiming you are for free speech and yet all you have done so far is to peddle anti-free speech rhetoric.
>You spam this sub claiming you are for free speech and yet all you have done so far is to peddle anti-free speech rhetoric.
Nonsense. Nowhere have I said that Gawker shouldn't have had the right of free speech. Just that they should accept responsibility for the consequences of that speech. That they chose not to, just means they're unable to defend their own rights when faced with justice for the harm they actually did cause while exercising that right.
I'm completely okay, for example, with you insulting me with your vitriol - as long as you're prepared to deal with the down votes in a responsible, adult-like manner. That isn't what happened with Gawker - they flaunted the law and demonstrated time and again that they thought they were above the law, "just because".
Alas, all these rights are for naught if we don't have a social system in place to protect them.
I think the billionaire funding of lawyers for a lawsuit was not an attack to free-speech. Not even close. Not even suggestive of such a thing. I think it did not affect the free work of the press as the article suggests. I think it only affected media vehicles abusing its power to earn money at the expense of violating the privacy of an individual.
I believe it is just like when the police arrests a thief robbing a store, it does not affect the right to come and go of the other customers. Not even the ones who are there complaining or protesting against the store.
Their free speech isn't being curtailed. Free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you want without repercussions or consequences. People are down voting you here, I guess that means your free speech is being attacked as well?
They went out of business because they did something wrong, and the judge agreed with the plaintiff that they should pay damages. Instead of paying those damages, the people behind Gawker decided - using their own free will - that they would be better off shuttering the site.
None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up. They gambled that HH wouldn't be willing to fight them back, and that the money they made from all the hoo-haw would be enough to keep them in business - but such is life in the free world. Free to win, free to lose: the system is there for both sides of the coin.
The JURY don't have any powers without THE JUDGE, whose ratification of the decision the jury made is the only means by which the law finds force in society. Without the Judiciary, no Jury. That's how the law works.
Gawker gambled on their ability to stay in business while also committing vile acts of hatred using their right to free speech. They lost the gamble. They weren't told "you can't have free speech" - they were told "you caused this amount of damage, by exercising your rights" - and it was Gawker themselves who decided they could not take responsibility for that damage, so they shuttered themselves.
Gawker lost because they flaunted the law, and in spite of having a court order to cease their attacks on an individual, continued regardless. TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES did not flaunt the law, nor were they required to - as they were not the targets of the suit.
"You are anti-free speech": No, you are simply wrong. I'm pro-free speech. I just don't think that its the golden get-out-of-jail card that you think it should be. There are other rights granted us by society; when one set of rights is used to impinge upon another, that is a case for the legal system to administer. You are yet to demonstrate an understanding of this fact: You can say what you want, but if it causes me harm, I also can say what I want - and when a multi-million dollar company goes up against an individual, I'm very glad of the fact that these rights are adjudicated in court.
It's a fine line we walk here. I do think that free speech is being curtailed, but I also would prefer a more civilized society where we can expect a certain level of respect given by default.
