Zen_Arcade
Banned
Well for one, the other side was clearly guilty. And I'm not some asshole who refuses to side with someone who is clearly right in a situation, even if I don't like the person winning either. That's usually a pretty good reason.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Netflix documentary considers the dangerous ramifications of Bollea v. Gawker for the
- Thread starter AuthenticM
- Start date
crackhead_bob
Member
That, I feel was more the reason for Hogan's lawsuit. It wasn't the sex. If it were just the sex, WWE wouldn't have given two fucks, because of Hogan's ubiquitous status in the pop culture stratum.
And Peter Thiel had it in for Gawker because they outed him as gay. But he couldn't sue them on those grounds, so he used the Hogan sex tape as a means of sinking them instead.
His same sex dalliances were not really a secret, so I can't understand why in this day and age he would give a shit. It's not like his life or reputation would have been left in tatters.
LordRaptor
Member
What world do YOU want to live in?
What do you think actually happened here? What do you think "must be changed!" ?
Do you want "I'm a journalist" to be a legally protected safe haven against any legal action? That its fine to distribute video of a drunk college girl being raped as a source of entertainment, because 'journalism'?
Do you want tort reform, so damages awarded by a jury are capped to a specific number and no more? So businesses know exactly the point at which it is more profitable to dump toxic waste in a childrens playground than pay to have it safely removed?
Do you want it so that only the specific individual damaged by malicious or irresponsible reportage can pay for legal representation, and ensure that News International and their deep deep pockets and army of lawyers can be held even less accountable for just making shit up and spewing it out via Fox & Friends than they already are?
That's basically where i am.
No, a super rich dude shouldn't be able to control press (though many of them have changed tactics and just bought the media conglomerates).
But that doesn't mean press should have a free pass to report whatever they want without reprecussions (the attitute of the Gawker says everything about what they thought of courts of laws).
Both of these things were present in this case. Both are shitty.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
I can't stand the premise of this whole documentary. "Gawker got fucked by a billionaire with a (justified) vendetta because they published a sex tape and refused to take it down after being given a court order. It sure is a slippery slope with Trump in the White House now."
The other half about the Vegas publication was interesting though.
The other half about the Vegas publication was interesting though.
I think that's the point the documentary tries to make in part; even Gawker should be protected by free speech.
I don't know if you saw the documentary but the Las Vegas Review-Journal part is actually worryingly.
Yes, they should be protected. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. This weak picking and choosing of your principles is pathetic. What Thiel and his ilk want is to twist that weakness and use it to gradually start tearing down every other news org out there. Using the courts, the public's perception, money, you name it. That was the point of linking Gawker to the Sheldon Atelston case. And even if this is a purely moral question, do you even know anything about what Thiel believes? He believes in racism and thinks women shouldn't vote. You think Gawker is a bigger threat than a guy as powerful as Thiel with the beliefs he has? He's a sociopathic genius who manipulated the courts and the law to kill Gawker. The law is an incredibly fucked up and imperfect thing and if your standard of what is right and what is wrong is based purely on that, you're getting played like a fiddle.
More situations like this are going to happen, and the narrative is going to be twisted by people like Thiel and Atelston to make those with weak principles say "well, that sounds really fucked up! I'm glad they shut down those people pretending to be journalists!".
LordRaptor
Member
I'm not "picking and choosing" principles.
I believe that it is reasonable to have constraints upon freedoms, especially when those freedoms are abused.
You are avoiding the actual specifics of what you think has gone wrong here, unless you're basically the equivalent of a gun-nut for "free speech" and believe that any constraint, no matter how logical or founded in principles of the greater benefit for society is automatically a bad thing because "muh amendment!"
Destroying and bankrupting the press because they did stupid shit is not what a society that supposedly believes in a free press should be about. You give up the ability to ever say you believe in a free press if you side with Thiel on this one and think the proper response to them defying a court order was absolute destruction. The rest of my post that you edited out makes what I think went wrong here as crystal clear as possible.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
No you don't. Believing in free press doesn't mean you think they should be able to do literally anything they want.
LordRaptor
Member
No, it doesn't, that's why I ignored it - it just says that you think Thiel is 'worse' than Gawker, which doesn't actually matter, unless your argument is that legal fees must only be paid by the parties directly involved.
Is that what you are arguing for? No more legal aid, no more Amnesty International, no more ACLU, no more EFF?
TheCochese
Banned
Two bullies fought, and one lost. I don't weep for them, and I don't cheer the other.
Yup. You aren't going to have Dauliero fucking up the court case for these others, either.
I get not wanting Thiel to win, but taking Gawker's side is saying it would be okay for Breitbart in 2019 to publish a sex tape of the Democratic challenger, regardless if there was anything illegal about the acts.
Yup. You aren't going to have Dauliero fucking up the court case for these others, either.
I get not wanting Thiel to win, but taking Gawker's side is saying it would be okay for Breitbart in 2019 to publish a sex tape of the Democratic challenger, regardless if there was anything illegal about the acts.
If context and motive doesn't matter to you, I don't have anything left to say. All you're doing is ignoring or dodging the deeper issues at play.
LordRaptor
Member
No; I am not the one advocating for whatever it is that you are advocating for.
Legal cases can only be funded by people directly affected?
Anyone with a blog should be immune to any legal action?
Juries should not be able to set damages?
You aren't actually saying what it is that you are suggesting would "fix" things.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I know you're already banned, but you're a fucking dick. People have a right to privacy and a shitrag like Gawker should not be able to publish personal information like that without punishment.
Should Phocion(Alexander Hamilton) have been punished for publishing the fact that Jefferson was having sex(raping) his slaves in the Gazette Of The United States?
The docu was a pretty good overview but a lot of people will just dismiss it because they hate Gawker and think they deserve whatever comes their way regardless of the larger consequences.
Like this guy. This is less to do about Gawker itself and more to do with the precedent it might set -- not just legal precedent, but also just the fact that Thiel proves billionaires can successfully destroy independent media companies through legal abuse. Did you guys even watch the docu? You don't have to publish snippets of a sex tape of a public figure to be vulnerable to billionaires that want to destroy you.
A lot of you also don't seem to understand the press' free speech. Maybe you don't think publishing snippets of a sex tape of a public figure should be protected, but it is and Gawker would have likely ended up winning their case if they had the money to continue the appeal process.
Like this guy. This is less to do about Gawker itself and more to do with the precedent it might set -- not just legal precedent, but also just the fact that Thiel proves billionaires can successfully destroy independent media companies through legal abuse. Did you guys even watch the docu? You don't have to publish snippets of a sex tape of a public figure to be vulnerable to billionaires that want to destroy you.
A lot of you also don't seem to understand the press' free speech. Maybe you don't think publishing snippets of a sex tape of a public figure should be protected, but it is and Gawker would have likely ended up winning their case if they had the money to continue the appeal process.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
You have to be pretty dumb to compare raping someone, which is dangerous and illegal, to exposing someone personal sexual orientation, which is neither.
Westbahnhof
Banned
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that outing a gay person and publishing that someone is a rapist are in the same category of "private life stuff"?
Edit: typos n stuff
Is this satire?
If you can read the sentence you just wrote and think for even a second "Yup, that 100% makes sense", you need help.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Are you comparing a man being privately gay to someone else committing sex crimes, because it seems to me that would be a very stupid comparison?!
Actually it was just sex as black people were property at that point, and could not in fact legally be raped by their masters.
Should he have been punished about reporting on what Jefferson was doing in his private life with HIS PROPERTY? Surely our ideals, if they are to hold any value in the future, have to be based on something other than feelings. It is possible to hate Gawker, and understand the importance of their speech. Hell, I don't think there is a single person in here who goes further than that in their defense of the Publication.
Westbahnhof
Banned
Please stop. This comparison obviously doesn't work, as property or not, he was hurting people. Using people.
Terrible argument.
Just tell me, why was outing the man in the public interest?
Not under the law.
So, are you agreeing in that instance that publishing private information was acceptable? Would you submit to agreeing with Gawker's article if it could be proved Thiel was hurting people?
Wasn't illegal if they were your property bro. Morally bankrupt and rightfully criticized though.
LordRaptor
Member
Westbahnhof
Banned
If you can convince me that him being gay is bad enough to be compared, sure.
What Jefferson did was obviously vile. How was Thiels homosexuality vile?
Free press should be about the public interest.
Sex tapes and outing people don't seem to fall under that, to me.
It was not important to the public.
Westbahnhof
Banned
Sorry for the dp
Triggerhappytel
Member
I'm not sure how someone who died 200 years ago and took advantage of slaves is particularly relevant today in terms of this discussion.
I'm not American and I don't know much about laws protecting free speech over there, but anything that negatively interferes with someone's personal life and career should be punishable or at least restricted, provided the victim is breaking no laws. But I will watch this documentary with interest regardless.
Well put.
Gawker wasn't convicted of outing Thiel.
They kept private videos on their site they were ordered by court to remove. Should Gawker be able to ignore court orders?
The publication has done much worse than outing people against their will and they got away with it because they got money and lawyers and their victims didn't. Is that ok?
Was it in the interest of the public to know that Thiel is gay? That's imo the big question. There was zero value for the public to watch Hogan fuck someone.
The lawsuit wasn't legitimate. It was thrown out several times until he shopped around for a sympathetic lawyer. It likely would have gotten ruled in Gawker's favor again if they had the money to continue the appeal process.
But really, I'm tired of arguing with people that don't know the details of the case, and related cases, or understand how the law works. Your hate for Gawker will drive you to rationalize it regardless of the facts. If the law doesn't back you up, you'll just suggest the law should be changed. You'll convince yourself this won't have consequences for other media that didn't happen to publish a sex tape but still found itself in the crosshairs of a vindictive billionaire.
No... they got away with it because we have a free press in America that lets you publish the truth and there's no law about being nice when you do so. Gawker was mean, sure, but that's not illegal. There's a reason that Gawker received wide support in this case from other journalists -- it doesn't mean they support everything Gawker did, but they understand the larger ramifications.
TheCochese
Banned
I'm arguing the merits of the Gawker case and not future, possible scenarios. If another organization screws up as badly and as arrogantly as Gawker did, yeah, they could be in trouble. If another organization wants to hire someone as incompetent and antagonistic to the judicial system as Dauliero, yeah, they could be in trouble.
Gawker showed contempt for the legal process and that's what ultimately did them in.
Fair enough admitting you could change if convinced, but this changes the question. Who decides what is the public interest?
Do I care what shoes Meghan Markle exercised in yesterday? That Eddie Murphy and his girl gets coffee at the same shop every day. This is published constantly in magazines and news blogs.
Of course, I am just responding to the main people whose hatred of Gawker seems to be because of how they wronged theil and "Aren't real press". They were most certainly press, and in the mold of journalism in this country historically.
The public interest angle is a hard one to justify really. Does any regular person care about who Thiel chooses to sleep with? I'd assume not, but I'd wager there is a certain segment who would be interested. Same way ESPN can run an article about some athletes high school days in the NBA finals. Who, really cares in the end? Somebody, I am sure.
Westbahnhof
Banned
Please don't do this.
Public interest does not mean interesting to the public, and this should be obvious.
Press is about the public interest.
Tabloid shit is about what is interesting to the public.
And these two should not both enjoy freedom of press.
LordRaptor
Member
No, you are misrepresenting what happened.
It failed on the grounds of copyright.
It was upheld on the grounds of infringement of privacy, and Gawker ignored that ruling.
I don't "hate" Gawker, but I don't think the 'rights' of the press to make money by selling sextapes - and lets not fucking kid ourselves what went on here - always and automatically supercede an individuals right to reasonable privacy.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
The difference between those things is that people don't get the shit beat out of them because they work out or like coffee, and they also don't hide the fact that they were high school athletes because they fear backlash and harassment. It's all shit that's clearly out in the public eye. Not something they're deliberately keeping private.
You have to be fucking brain dead to not see the difference between these things.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
See, this is what I'm talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm referring to when it was thrown out in federal court before he dismissed those lawsuits and shopped around for a sympathetic judge in state court. And for the billionth time, Gawker did NOT ignore the ruling. THEY REMOVED THE TAPE. They didn't remove the text, and they were correct not to remove the text. You're insane if you think the judge was correct in ordering them to remove the text of their article.
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-fra...s-hulk-hogan-even-have-a-case-against-gawker/
You guys don't seem to realize that the case had other outcomes before this particular ruling and would have likely had a different outcome had Gawker been able to afford to continue the appeals. Don't confuse "ran out of money" with "found guilty"
Thiel being outed has zero to do with that because the case wasn't about that article at all, so.... yeah, it's telling.
Well according to the Thiel article his sexuality was clearly out in the public eye. I think made it very apparent he didnt try to hide it.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
If that were true then no one would have been outed in the first place and there would be no controversy on the subject.
Was there actually much controversy before it was found that Thiel bankrolled countless unrelated lawsuits against gawker?
Fair enough point.
I do agree that outing is a scummy thing to do. Gawker, while I believe served an important purpose in terms of their place in society at a point, were douchebags towards this case. They were simply out of touch.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
It doesn't matter. It's still a shit thing to do. If you tell me something I know you don't want anyone else to know it doesn't make it alright if I only tell a few people as opposed to telling hundreds. The fact that it didn't blow up bigger wouldn't make me any less of a dick, because I'm still the overall reason that information is out there if/when it does spread.
LordRaptor
Member
It was a legitimate case, because it went to court and was found by a jury to be legitimate.
That is the textbook definition of legitimate. I am not saying courts are always infallible, but to deny that there was any case at all is a gross misrepresentation of what happened.
Do you genuinely believe that the press - any press, regardless of vetting procedures, fact checking or code of ethics - always superceds an individuals - any individuals, regardless of how much of a shitheel they might be - rights, including those of a right to expected privacy?
So the lesson is don't be mean to billionaires unless you want to drown in legal bills despite not actually doing anything illegal. Gotcha.
shawnbuddy
Member
Thiel was already out. He's admitted this. Authoritorian-GAF seems to be clinging to this falsehood because it's the only thing that makes him seem sympathetic here, otherwise his motivations are straight up super villain.
More thoughts:
The fact that it took Thiel so long to kill Gawker isn't proof of how powerful Gawker was. It's proof of how robust our protections for unpopular speech are in how much effort Thiel had to expend to take it down.
The argument being made by the authoritarians in this thread, basically the free speech version of "If you're not doing anything illegal/bad you've got nothing to fear," will end with democracy dying in darkness.
No, there's a pretty clear distinction between private individuals and public individuals. Read that Reuters article. I'm tired of talking with people that refuse to educate themselves.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
No, the lesson is that you shouldn't be a constant dick to everyone, because eventually karma is going to bite you in the ass. And the moment you slip up is when everyone you've treated like shit is going to come out of the woodwork to take you down for shit they couldn't make you pay for back when you wronged them.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll