FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on June 10, 2016, 02:46:29 pm
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/media/gawker-bankruptcy-sale.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/media/gawker-bankruptcy-sale.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0)
"A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post. We Won't. We'll Go Bankrupt Instead."
-
Such a pity.
I enjoyed the sheer Schadenfreude involved if nothing else.
-
I bet UP's really upset about this.
Ironbite-absolutely crushed.
-
HULKAMANIA IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH BROTHER
-
Wow.
-
I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.
-
I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.
It was an incredibly daft move on their part. All they needed to do was admit they did a shitty thing and remove the privacy-breaching material and that would have been that. As it is their dick move has opened the way for billionaires with a grudge to litigate critics out of existence by proxy and we lose Kotaku and io9. Which sucks.
-
I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.
It was an incredibly daft move on their part. All they needed to do was admit they did a shitty thing and remove the privacy-breaching material and that would have been that. As it is their dick move has opened the way for billionaires with a grudge to litigate critics out of existence by proxy and we lose Kotaku and io9. Which sucks.
They didn't just "criticize" Thiel, they outed him against his will.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=1)
As for Kotaku and io9, speak for yourself.
-
I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.
It was an incredibly daft move on their part. All they needed to do was admit they did a shitty thing and remove the privacy-breaching material and that would have been that. As it is their dick move has opened the way for billionaires with a grudge to litigate critics out of existence by proxy and we lose Kotaku and io9. Which sucks.
They didn't just "criticize" Thiel, they outed him against his will.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=1)
As for Kotaku and io9, speak for yourself.
Er, I was speaking for myself. I've never claimed to represent a "movement". Unlike some.
And outing people against their will sucks, creating an attack fund to punish your enemies in the press sets a dangerous precedent O noble defender of FreezePeach. Wonder what the Koch brothers make of this case...
Also, direct question UP if this is your definition of "censorship"
The way I define censorship is the suppression of expression for no reason other than its perceived offensiveness.
Doesn't trying to shut down an entire publication fall under this category?
Sure, Gawkers invasions of privacy are disgusting but-io9, Jalopnik and lifehacker aren't in the business of invading privacy, they are reporting on science fiction news, cars and whatever lifehacker is about. Saying "your publication is offensive and I'm going to shut down it's ability to publish anything" certainly seems like an attempt to suppress expression for no reason than its perceived offensiveness. And Thiel is trying to shut down Gawker (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/06/07/behind-peter-thiel-plan-to-destroy-gawker/#5c0f3ead5848), all of Gawker, forever, and you are cheering him on.
-
I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.
It was an incredibly daft move on their part. All they needed to do was admit they did a shitty thing and remove the privacy-breaching material and that would have been that. As it is their dick move has opened the way for billionaires with a grudge to litigate critics out of existence by proxy and we lose Kotaku and io9. Which sucks.
They didn't just "criticize" Thiel, they outed him against his will.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=1)
As for Kotaku and io9, speak for yourself.
Er, I was speaking for myself. I've never claimed to represent a "movement". Unlike some.
And outing people against their will sucks, creating an attack fund to punish your enemies in the press sets a dangerous precedent O noble defender of FreezePeach. Wonder what the Koch brothers make of this case...
Also, direct question UP if this is your definition of "censorship"
The way I define censorship is the suppression of expression for no reason other than its perceived offensiveness.
Doesn't trying to shut down an entire publication fall under this category?
Sure, Gawkers invasions of privacy are disgusting but-io9, Jalopnik and lifehacker aren't in the business of invading privacy, they are reporting on science fiction news, cars and whatever lifehacker is about. Saying "your publication is offensive and I'm going to shut down it's ability to publish anything" certainly seems like an attempt to suppress expression for no reason than its perceived offensiveness. And Thiel is trying to shut down Gawker (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/06/07/behind-peter-thiel-plan-to-destroy-gawker/#5c0f3ead5848), all of Gawker, forever, and you are cheering him on.
1. Gawker is worse than "offensive," it's harmful. Ever heard of the Gawker Stalker?
2. How would you propose attacking Gawker without attacking its outlets?
-
You know I don't have a problem with Thiel. I think UP's position is difficult because of the hypocrisy. But that's only a problem if you want to hold him to any form of consistency. This is just a great example of UP's 'morals' being determined by whether he likes the person (Organisation) or not.
-
You know I don't have a problem with Thiel. I think UP's position is difficult because of the hypocrisy. But that's only a problem if you want to hold him to any form of consistency. This is just a great example of UP's 'morals' being determined by whether he likes the person (Organisation) or not.
No double standard here. Invasions of privacy like these deserve to be punished.
-
Well If Thiel's legal "philanthropy" came with a specific demand like "stop invading peoples privacy for clicks you assholes" I could get behind that. If it's done with the purpose of simply crushing your enemies for slighting you you...not so much.
As I said it sets a precedent, if other parties with deep pockets want a model for crushing pesky media for asking uncomfortable questions a heck of a lot more legitimate than Gawkers creepy clickbait they now have a good model. In any case the support of certain "online movements" for this case has more to do with naked revenge than any concern for Hogan or Thiel's privacy.
-
You know I don't have a problem with Thiel. I think UP's position is difficult because of the hypocrisy. But that's only a problem if you want to hold him to any form of consistency. This is just a great example of UP's 'morals' being determined by whether he likes the person (Organisation) or not.
No double standard here. Invasions of privacy like these deserve to be punished.
Does Reddit deserve to be punished in the same way Gawker is for publishing invasions of privacy on its website? That is, litigated into nonexistence. How about 8chan, or Brietbart?
Ever heard of the Gawker Stalker?
I had to google it, and it is indeed repulsive (http://gawker.com/160338/introducing-gawker-stalker-maps). Again. We arent talking about a request for somebody to stop doing a particular thing. We are talking about an attempt to stifle their ability to communicate at all. Different.How would you propose attacking Gawker without attacking its outlets?
My problem is not attacking Gawker per se, Hulk and Thiel both had their privacy invaded and were damn right to sue Gawker because of it. I'm not opposed to restitution for civil wrongs, what I am opposed to is setting up a slush fund for the explicit purpose of crushing your enemy. That goes beyond restitution, it's not responding to a specific wrongdoing it's just revenge for the sake of revenge.
In any case Gawkers properties are just that, properties. They retain value and will probably be sold to another interested party after the umbrella organization goes bankrupt so reports of their early demise may be exaggerated.
-
I thought Thiel was pretty open about the fact that he was funding it because he had a grudge against Gawker. The fact that his motives weren't pure doesn't change the fact that it was appropriate to help fund someone who couldn't afford to litigate when they had a genuine claim.
-
I thought Thiel was pretty open about the fact that he was funding it because he had a grudge against Gawker. The fact that his motives weren't pure doesn't change the fact that it was appropriate to help fund someone who couldn't afford to litigate when they had a genuine claim.
And Hogan's claim is legit, publishing pictures of you fuckin' without your consent is as creepy as it gets. My concern is this, whats stopping other parties with deep.pockets and a grudge from using Thiel's third part litigation model against other press outlets with a view to shutting them down. What's stopping tobacco, fossil fuels, arms manufacturers, pharmaceuticals etc from adopting this model and funding every lawsuit against pesky publications who expose their actual wrongdoing?
Thiel's grievance was genuine, so was Hogan's. My concern is purely and simply with setting up a slush fund with the sole purpose of obliterating critical media.
-
I think you might find that some organisations already do it. Scientology for instance.
Edit: Funding another person's litigation used to be illegal in the common law world. It was the torts of Champerty and Maintenance. Those torts have been largely abolished. Perhaps partly in the belief that unmeritorious claims and abuses of the process can be otherwise regulated with the processes of the Court.
-
Yeah, I'd read that Gawker was planning to counter sue for something like that. I didn't know a bankrupt company could do anything but sit tight and wait for the liquidators to have their merry way with them but I'm no expert on company law. Where's queenie when you need her?
-
Once controllers are appointed, either liquidators or administrators have control of the Company. The decision to bring any such claim is for them to make. However if they were to countersue, it probably should have been in the same proceedings. Meaning it may already have been dismissed. Certainly the former directors of the Company have no say in what happens.
-
You know I don't have a problem with Thiel. I think UP's position is difficult because of the hypocrisy. But that's only a problem if you want to hold him to any form of consistency. This is just a great example of UP's 'morals' being determined by whether he likes the person (Organisation) or not.
No double standard here. Invasions of privacy like these deserve to be punished.
Such great debate skills. I expect your rebuttal to this post will be "I know you are, but what am I?"
-
I thought Thiel was pretty open about the fact that he was funding it because he had a grudge against Gawker. The fact that his motives weren't pure doesn't change the fact that it was appropriate to help fund someone who couldn't afford to litigate when they had a genuine claim.
And Hogan's claim is legit, publishing pictures of you fuckin' without your consent is as creepy as it gets. My concern is this, whats stopping other parties with deep.pockets and a grudge from using Thiel's third part litigation model against other press outlets with a view to shutting them down. What's stopping tobacco, fossil fuels, arms manufacturers, pharmaceuticals etc from adopting this model and funding every lawsuit against pesky publications who expose their actual wrongdoing?
In principle, that you need to be right rather than just well-funded to win.
In practice, I'm not sure how well that holds, but I don't think Thiel invented this? Is there reason to think Thiel doing this changed anything?
-
Maybe not, Thiel certainly didn't invent predatory litigation. If Gawker does counter sue it could.change things however necause that could set a legal precedent. That's a big if though. So, I know that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer Sigma but, I don't know. That's my answer.
-
Rarely has UP's dishonest hypocrisy been so obvious as this case. Let's remember what he believes shall we?
1) Nobody should ever do anything to someone who says something they don't like.
2) Peter Thiel is quite right to fund any and all lawsuits, including frivolous ones, in order to punish Gawker for saying something he didn't like.
Hack.