The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
It sounds like the outcome of Hogan v. Gawker is that news media - and especially the ream of online-only "news" sites that have sprouted over the past decade - are far more likely to fact check their stories before they publish stories that only serve to humiliate and degrade their subjects. Sexual predator or not, slow coverage of the R. Kelly debacle can hardly be pinned on Hulk Hogan holding Gawker accountable for their actions.
But what's your point? The Gawker fiasco absolutely did spook other media outlets and has made them nervous about publishing negative stories about other media figures. That's what WaPo is observing here.
The headline is false, like I said downthread: the story would have run somewhere else. But the story seems entirely valid.
Trying to in someway make people feel bad for Gawker by somehow saying that their entirely self-imposed destruction is making it hard for actual news with real value to be published is super disingenuous.
If other news outlets got nervous about publishing legitimate investigations into the actions of public figures, that's on them. The protections the press receives in America are robust, and the Gawker case was so newsworthy because it was an actual instance of the press "losing" for once in one of these case, and only because their actions were incredibly egregious.
In summary, the article tries to drum up some sort of phony sympathy for the actions of Gawker by somehow linking worthwhile reporting with the muck-racking dreck that Gawker traded in and ultimately was killed by.
And again: this story reports that we don't even know what was in DeRogatis' original piece. Buzzfeed's legal cut things out of it. When we say "a well-researched piece like this is fine post-Gawker", we should recognize that we don't know if DeRogatis' original reporting even survived the editing process.
As someone having the ability to ruin anybody with what you type into a keyboard you should be held to as high a standard as possible.
I worked in this environment years ago and I still feel tainted by association. Imho most of the so called free press has no right to be privileged at all.
What I would call journalism on the other hand should be able to operate unharmed and as free as possible (but as said above) nor unchecked.
They aren't, which is why we have things like journalism.
But yeah, it just MIGHT happen to you. I believe newspaper writers should also reconsider the threat of lightning strikes, I hear they kill people every year.
Gawker acted like a petulant child that was appalled it was getting punished by an admittedly broken and hypocritical system. This does not mean other people now need to fear the system anymore than they should have feared it before - its brokenness was not magically illuminated by Gawker. There are so many cases of defamation lawfare that anti-SLAPP statutes exist(bonus points not in all states!) and there are several high-prominence FA lawyers who write about the issue and organize a defense for it.
If the newspaper writers were somehow unaware of this before Gawker(including all the small-time blogs which get ruined by defamation lawfare because they cannot afford representation - essentially what happened to Gawker here, just on a larger scale), then they were blind to reality.
[0] - http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
[1] - http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-...
Yes, the landscape is different, as it damn well should be.
> A columnist is someone who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions. Columns appear in newspapers, magazines and other publications, including blogs. They take the form of a short essay by a specific writer who offers a personal point of view. In some instances, a column has been written by a composite or a team, appearing under a pseudonym, or (in effect) a brand name. Some columnists appear on a daily or weekly basis and later reprint the same material in book collections.[2]
The first quote is from the author's blurb at the bottom of OP's post. The second is straight from the definition of Columnist. I think her disclosure was adequate, as it assumes those reading her story understand that columnists' jobs are to give their own commentary.
[1.] Scroll to the bottom of the OP's article and you'll see the author's name and role at the WaPo.
We might have to agree to disagree, then. Without an explicit disclaimer (as is common/conventional for opinion pieces like this), the only reasonable assumption here is that - by allowing this article to be published on its website with its branding - the Washington Post endorses this article and the opinions thereof.
None of what you've linked/quoted contradicts that assessment in any way. In fact, it only reinforces it.
First (well, not actually first, as newspapers get sued all the time) they came for Gawker, and I said nothing, because Gawker was actually wrong and I believe justice was made.
> First they came for the child molesters
Doesn't have the same ring to it
I sure can't wait to use the fast lane powered by Verizon!
First they came for the child molesters... Then the murderers... Then the drug dealers... ... Then the drug abusers... Then the 'soft on crime' dissidents... Then the 'rule of law' activists...
We have laws that protect the rights of child molesters and terrorists to have fair trials because those laws protect us as well.
But thats a good thing. We are witnessing checks and balances in play. The Fifth Estate is necessary, whether we like it or not - power always corrupts, and media have power that we, the people, do not. How else should things continue: totally unchecked?
That isn't a good thing.
> We are witnessing checks and balances in play.
No. What we are witnessing is a billionaire getting his way because he has money. It's a billion putting a pall over the "fifth estate".
> The Fifth Estate is necessary, whether we like it or not
Sure, but that is what is being attacked and intimidated. That isn't a good thing.
> How else should things continue: totally unchecked?
I'd rather lean towards "totally unchecked" than "controlled".
I'd rather politicians, celebrities, elite be worried about the fifth estate than the fifth estate being intimidated by the politicians, celebrities, elite.
> who are truly the ones to suffer at the hands of all of these levels of irresponsibility.
The people are the ones to suffer?
No. The people suffer when their free speech rights are attacked.
Holy christ, the anti-free speech crusaders are in force today.
Really? Going out of business isn't having their speech curtailed?
> Free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you want without repercussions or consequences.
Sure...
> People are down voting you here, I guess that means your free speech is being attacked as well?
No. I'm still allowed to comment aren't I? You are able to read my comments aren't you?
Certainly, even people like you can understand that having a billionaire purposefully sue you to bankrupt you is a tad different than downvotes.
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.
No. They went out of business because they ran out of money to continue their legal defense.
> and the judge agreed with the plaintiff that they should pay damages.
No. Not the judge. The JURY.
> Instead of paying those damages, the people behind Gawker decided - using their own free will - that they would be better off shuttering the site.
They could have continue with the legal proceedings but they didn't have the funds.
> None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up.
Really? TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES published segments of the sex tape. TMZ and those sites are still around.
I already provided PROOF. You can repeat the same thing over and over again. It isn't going to magically turn true.
>but such is life in the free world.
Not in a free world. In a billionaire's world.
> the system is there for both sides of the coin.
Apparently, it's for the billionaire's.
Using your logic, TMZ and most of the sites would be out of business. After all, they published the sex tape images LONG BEFORE gawker. Okay?
You can spin it anyway you like. You are anti-free speech advocate.
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.
>Apparently, it's for the billionaire's.
Gawker=multi-million-dollar BUSINESS. HH=(admittedly wealthy) INDIVIDUAL.
Just whose side are you on there, buddy?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
https://thinkprogress.org/nobody-speak-documentary-eab86b547...
Funny how TMZ and other sites are still around?
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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
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.
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 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.
Interesting tidbits.
1. Sex tape was obtained LEGALLY.
2. Hogan discussed sex tape openly long before Gawker bought it and released it.
3. Many sites released footage of the sex tape years before gawker.
https://thinkprogress.org/nobody-speak-documentary-eab86b547...
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.
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.
If you want to defend free speech, you'd be better served talking about what's currently going on at college campuses.
Seriously, in the US, if you regard the clergy, nobleman and peasants (the traditional first 3 estates) as the most important power structures, then you need to recalibrate your world view.
Whine all they want. What needs to happen now, if the big media companies want to defend their constitutional protections, is that some media company that isn't Gawker and doesn't behave in the same recklessly malicious manner needs to win a case. Thereby confirming that the actual details of the Gawker trial are in fact relevant and so long as they act like sincere, responsible journalists who treat their 1st amendment protections with a modicum of respect and humility, they don't have to worry about a jury slapping them with a $140 million punishment.
Which costs millions. Who should foot the bill for that?
> Thereby confirming that the actual details of the Gawker trial are in fact relevant and so long as they act like sincere, responsible journalists who treat their 1st amendment protections with a modicum of respect and humility, they don't have to worry about a jury slapping them with a $140 million punishment.
They only have to worry about spending millions on lawyers to argue the cases!
It's not just that media outlets are afraid of losing the cases. As a media outlet, if you have to argue the case in front of a jury, you've already lost. It's better from a financial risk point of view to just not publish anything that might get you sued.
The issue with the Gawker case is that it has encouraged rich celebrity plaintiffs with little to lose to sue media outlets, who stand to suffer significant financial losses even if they win the case. R. Kelly is willing to lose a million dollars for a chance to save his reputation, which is worth far more than that to him. A media outlet isn't willing to lose a million dollars to a piece that'll earn far less than that in revenue. Hence the media self-censors.
Presumably, the world-famous multimedia behemoth willing to assume the risk of getting sued in order to publish newsworthy truth.
In this case, it'll be Buzzfeed, since they're the organization with the courage to publish the story. And they ought to have the support of people who believe in their cause, the way Thiel believed in Bollea's.
> As a media outlet, if you have to argue the case in front of a jury, you've already lost.
At some point defending against defamation has to become part of the cost of doing business for a world-famous multimedia behemoth. Buzzfeed stands to profit a great deal at the expense of R Kelly by publishing such a salacious story. Not only do they profit for the story itself, but an exclusive like that could grow their permanent audience.
> The issue with the Gawker case is that it has encouraged rich celebrity plaintiffs with little to lose to sue media outlets.
Is this true, though, or is it just the desired narrative? How do we know that the Hogan decision will have made a difference on whether R Kelly decides to sue? How do you assert that engaging in a protracted civil litigation is "nothing to lose" for a celebrity?
Celebrity net worth pegs R Kelly at $150 million. A 2015 investment from NBCUniversal put Buzzfeed's valuation at 1.5 billion.
> Hence the media self-censors.
Media self-censors all the time. Big media companies are incredibly risk-averse. A sob story about a journalist enduring the intense pain of having to shop a story around to several different publications until finally one picked it up, wouldn't be news except that the media companies all want to frame themselves as poor victims of the Hogan decision, which they hate because it means they must be ever so slightly less reckless when destroying the lives of their subjects.
So, therefore, smaller companies that can't afford to pay should decline to publish anything that could offend anyone rich and powerful? Was Susan Fowler, for example, in the wrong for publishing the allegations against Uber earlier this year, because she was not "a world-famous multimedia behemoth"?
> Buzzfeed stands to profit a great deal at the expense of R Kelly by publishing such a salacious story.
Evidently most media outlets disagreed with that calculus. That's why this was a story to begin with.
> Celebrity net worth pegs R Kelly at $150 million. A 2015 investment from NBCUniversal put Buzzfeed's valuation at 1.5 billion.
The cost to R. Kelly: Hundreds of millions of opportunity cost. Millions of dollars in legal fees from victims.
The cost to BuzzFeed (or whoever) of declining to take on a story: A million dollars in opportunity cost, tops?
I'm probably hugely overestimating the benefit for BuzzFeed to try to be as fair to your point as possible, and the numbers still don't add up.
> Is this true, though, or is it just the desired narrative? How do we know that the Hogan decision will have made a difference on whether R Kelly decides to sue?
The media sure thinks it does, and that is the problem.
> Media self-censors all the time. Big media companies are incredibly risk-averse.
You've correctly identified the issue here.
> A sob story about a journalist enduring the intense pain of having to shop a story around to several different publications until finally one picked it up, wouldn't be news except that the media companies all want to frame themselves as poor victims of the Hogan decision, which they hate because it means they must be ever so slightly less reckless when destroying the lives of their subjects.
Hold on. R. Kelly is not the victim in this case. If the story is true, the victims are the people R. Kelly abused. It would have been a huge injustice for the story to be self-censored out of existence and for the victims' voices to go unheard! How would you feel about this story if you knew a victim?
We aren't talking about random media vindictiveness. There is a reason why journalists go to so much effort to do this research, often at a personal cost.
Where was the "gawker is not journalism and threatens to undermine us all with their stupidity" WaPo opinion piece before the trial?
Here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/free-speech-i...
It doesn't just criticize Gawker, of course, because it's focused on press freedom in general. That's because press freedom is a right, not some kind of privilege that can be taken away from everybody if one actor "abuses" it.
WaPo isn't making the comparison. The author of the Buzzfeed piece is-
>“Gawker came up in a lot of those conversations,” DeRogatis said
Lets not forget techdirt being sued by "email" fraud Shiva Ayyadurai with money won by Thiel lawyer.
By the same token, the problem with revenge porn isn't the ex having the videos, it's them distributing them.
I'm not saying the Gawker/Hogan case represents journalism at its finest. But to me, protecting free speech is so important that it's better to err on the side of protecting it rather than restricting it.
You could say Gawker had no serious news story there, but what happens when it's grey? The government has no business having discussions about what is meritorious or not meritorious news.
One could also argue that the damage to Hogan was about as clear as the meritoriousness of the Gawker story, so in the end it doesn't matter. It's literally the Streisand effect, played out on a larger, more serious scale. None of us would remember anything about this episode if Hogan and Thiel hadn't pursued this.
I also think that the difference between your typical ex and a celebrity is critical. When you are seeking celebrity status professionally, I think the expectation of privacy has to be reduced. I hate to say that, and mean no ill-will toward celebrities, but I think that has to be expected. That doesn't mean anything goes in terms of celebrity privacy, but I think it does mean that when you have a case of freedom of the press versus privacy, if you're dealing with a celebrity, the burden gets shifted further to the celebrity to prove wrongdoing, pretty far. I think it's unfair to pursue money by attracting attention to yourself, and the complain when that happens.
Again, Hogan going after Bubba? No problem with that. Going after Gawker? Huge problem.
I have no affection toward Gawker, but the Hogan-Thiel suit (or more appropriately, the decision) set a dangerous, dangerous precedent, because now the onus is on the speaker to prove their speech is "worthy" of protection.
I have my suspicions that billionaires are funding the anti-free speech lobbies online
> It worked. Gawker felt like they were in the right but resource exhaustion got them in the end.
It was a billionaire using his money to essentially shutdown a news/media outlet by suing it over and over again. It would be like Bezos suing a small bookstore over and over again to bankrupt them.
We are only now seeing that there have been pedophilia rings at the highest levels of the rich and powerful in the UK, which had never been reported on despite apparently it being an open secret.
I wouldn't be so quick to say this is a good thing. Gawker is a shitty tabloid but it isn't the first one, there have been plenty of others. Tabloids have been publishing stuff famous people would rather not be published for decades. It's a price of fame and a price of a free press.
I get the concern that blowback a could happen, but Gawker died because of Gawker, not just because some rich guy went after them.
The “chilling” effect is really just not publishing private sex tapes (just for views, mind you) and refusing to take them down when ordered to... also not outing gay people. In other words, a bit of common decency.
There is a monumental difference between that and writing a negative article.
The “chilling” effect is not self imploding your news organization by doing stupid things over and over.
What's being exposed is a situation where pissing off the wrong guy can bury companies in court (and legal fees even if they're found innocent), and that it's too easy for one rich guy with a vendetta to do this. The issue is muddied because Gawker were clearly in the wrong, both legally and morally, with the Hogan tape. But, this will still have a chilling effect on people writing factually and morally correct articles if they fear they'll piss off the wrong guy. That's the issue - Thiel is going around trying to shut down media outlets he doesn't like, the fact that Gawker were a horrible outlet to begin with doesn't negate that.
"There is a monumental difference between that and writing a negative article."
Yes, and his current target wrote negative articles about his current client, articles that are backed by solid evidence that they are true. Nothing Techdirt has said is demonstrably false, and their attacks on Shiva's claims are always backed by verifiable evidence. The Techdirt case is far more defensible than the Gawker one, but the same principles apply, as does the chilling effect it will be having on other outlets.
No. Gawker died because of a billionaire who wanted to take it down and the mass PR firm he hired to get people on his side on social media.
Also, the top comments on this thread are repeating the same lies over and over again.
> publishing an illegaly-obtained sex tape in its entirety
Was it illegal? Then why isn't the gawker people in prison?
> and refusing to take it down after a judge orders to do so?
They have a right to refuse an unconstitutional order and their refusal was vindicated by the courts.
"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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
The courts ruled that the judge's injunction violated FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
The top comments in this thread repeat the same debunked lies over and over again. But I guess that's the power of billionaires and their PR firms. A lie repeated over and over again becomes the truth?
On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.
I know. That's my point. Not only that, the appeals court ruled in favor of gawkers.
> but people also have the right to judge you for that.
Sure...
>You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial.
No I'm not. I actually addressed it.
> They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value."
No. That's not why they lost. Trials are FICKLE.
> On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.
What does this have to do with "revenge porn"?
Not only that. If you look at the replies, there is a "core group" who are repeating the SAME THING over and over again. The same debunked lies.
I'm not a fan of gawker. I'm not that sad that they aren't around. But what I am shocked by is that it was taken out by a vindictive billionaire with an agenda. It's surprising how a select group of accounts are attacking me for pointing that out.
There were TONS of websites that published all or parts of the sex tape before gawker. And yet, thiel went after gawker.
Apparently, a site being attacked and bankrupted by a vindictive billionaire is a praise worthy thing in a free society to a select group of people on HN.
It's a very strange thing to behold.
Nothing. What's your point? As I said, JURIES aren't infallible.
The prosecutors lost the case against OJ simpson. What's your point?
> That seems to be rather neglected in this explanation...
No. The point is that someone who had NOTHING to do with the hogan case decided to inject themselves and use their money to bankrupt a company.
Okay?
Gawker had a fair trial in a US court of law and it lost. If that didn't happen it couldn't go out of business.
This is not the point. Hulk Hogan is entirely moot to the issue at hand.
Hogan's case was just a vehicle for Thiel's goal of getting back at a company who had written articles that he disliked. What Thiel did was to tell people with deep enough pockets to see that it's possible to destroy someone for writing articles that they disagree with. The case was structured to ensure that Gawker could not rely on insurance for paying certain damages and that people became personally liable for the damages arising from the case[1].
So, imagine that Warren Buffet dislikes an expose in the Chicago Tribune about him. He then waits for someone to have a grievance against them and then tells that person that he'll provide all the financial resources to drag this case on for years and refuse to settle or repeatedly finds various proxy parties and repeats this behavior. Tronc is then forced to sell assets to keep afloat while dealing with this litigation.
Thiel's behavior shows this works and that most people seem okay with it. That's the problem.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/media/nick-dento...
Most people (journalists excepted) are OK with taking down a company for publishing someone else's sex tape without their permission. Aren't you?
But the reason they were put out of business - rather than reaching a settlement or paying out from insurance - is because Peter Thiel had a (arguably justifiable) grudge against them.
Thats relevant, whether Thiel had a grudge is not important many people have grudges and take other people to court over it.
The fact that judgments of such high amounts can happen is a general issue though, and they seem to serve as a questionable replacement for punishment that maybe should be the domain of criminal cases.
This didn't happen in Gawker's case though
Not only that, it is "celebrated". Call me a cynic but I'm sure it's also because Thiel hired a large PR firm to "massage social media" and frame the debate.
It was shocking to see how so much of social media "fell in love" with thiel overnight.
You would see threads about patent trolls suing small companies or large corporations using patents to destroy small companies and much of social media would be against it. But then celebrate Thiel as if he was some hero.
Even here, you see the same theme. The top comments are praising or defending thiel.
Do you believe the Hogan case was an illegitimate suit? If not, why does it matter who financed it? I find the fact that it requires huge funds to win a case much more troubling, personally. If the suit itself is legitimate, then him winning is a good thing.
If you take exception to Thiel financing Hogan's case, why? Hogan very likely would not have been able to afford the case without the financing, meaning justice wouldn't have been served because he was not rich enough.
But, on the flipside, Thiel was financing numerous lawsuits against Gawker due to a personal vendetta, many of them much more frivolous and defensible than the Hogan case. He clearly intended to bury Gawker, the Hogan thing was just a way he found to do it quickly rather than waiting for their legal defense funds to run out.
Both of these are problems. What's troubling/chilling is that Thiel hasn't stopped, he's just agreed to finance other peoples' vendettas (in the first case, Shiva Ayyadurai, about whom Techdirt are telling the absolute verifiable truth when they say he's lying about inventing email). That's where it crossed the line, and created a dangerous precedent that has a real chilling effect.
Michael Mann has used unknown backers to sue National Review and Mark Steyn, and has managed to draw the lawsuit out for over 6 years with no end in sight.
He gets almost no bad press over this fact.
There was nothing unprecedented about Thiel's behaviour. It's quite common. Gawker just had particularly bad behaviour, yet for some reason it felt invincible.
What Theil did was to show that to make sure justice is served when a rich entity is involved, at least an equally rich entity should be involved to make them pay for it.
You make it sound like Theil bribed someone or did something unethical. What he merely did was that he kept paying lawyers so that the lawyers being paid by Gawker could not get away digging for excuses and lengthening the case (usually, lengthening the case is way to make the opposition go bankrupt).
The Hogan "story", however, should indeed have never seen the light of day.
Not only that, but it's possible the story would have been better, or at least sharper: Buzzfeed's lawyers cut back the allegations.
I honestly can't feel sorry. And the fact that this journo from wapo is only victim blaming doesn't surprise me one bit.
Eg the New Yorker outed him 2011 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-tax...
News Media has really lost its way, it needs shook up bigtime.
Care to elaborate? I always thought he was just a startup investor, albeit a very successful one.
I believe it's just a classic case of mixing literal and connotative meanings of phrases. The poster does not mean Peter Thiel is inherently an unlikeable person, but that the poster himself believes Peter Thiel to be an unlikeable person, i.e "I don't like Peter Thiel."
E-prime doesn't have this problem.
Now, that sounds insane and unlikely. However, I've seen it mentioned a number of times. I guess the claim is that it is from an interview. I'm unwilling to invest more time to look into it. I don't actually care and I'm not sure why, if true, it would make him a bad person. I have to assume it'd be voluntary, if true.
To be clear, it sounds rather unlikely. I share more to show what folks are saying, than to pass any judgement in his character.
I was able to find two vanity fair pieces on the topic, if only because I had a better place to start: "Thiel blood boy"
"Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
Either way, someone expressing a loss of belief in something makes them unlikable? You don't like Peter Thiel because he's become cynical about democracy?
Nothing to be "correct" about.
Because animals are not able to give consent, nor are they capable of the thinking required to do so. Suggesting that homosexuality and zoophilia are two points on the same line is a very tired and inaccurate point to try to make.
> If marijuana, why not cocaine?
Actually a fair question. There's an interesting line of thought in legalising all drugs to bring them out into the open.
And neither of those sets of incentives is, unlike the doubly-indirect structure itself, part of the federal Constitution; they are both much more recent federal statute and state law incentives.
First, California is only very liberal in certain places. It is very conservative in others (the Central Valley)
Second, gay marriage opposition had a huge campaign by a religious organization. That religious organization should have been fined heavily or lost its tax exemption for doing so.
Third, it takes time for the attitudes about things like marijuana legalization to shift. That moment was, in fact, the last moment when the legalization opponents could have won. And they were backed by large amounts of money being thrown around by things like the alcohol lobby who are deathly afraid of legalization affecting their profits (they are correct).
("Red Tribe" and "Blue Tribe", as one may call the collection of traits held by the average conservative and average neoliberal, respectively, are effectively different cultures[1].)
[1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
Also, I would say that you are using a shallow definition of culture.
As best I understand, having a single system with aspects of both extremes, has not brought out the advantages of either. We'd be better served by having a public system and a market that competes with it; except that nobody in good health would find the public system to be competitive, and that thus the public system would devolve into a public charity for the chronically ill/injured/etc.
> national service but with exemptions
That's all well and good, but exemptions become more difficult for a number of other things.
For instance, rural residents (a.k.a. "Red Tribe") generally prefer to be taxed less and receive less subsidized services overall in return; whereas many urban residents wish for a sort of Northern-European "nanny state" which provides every service imaginable in exchange for having negligible post-tax net income.
And here's another example which speaks more directly to geography. In rural areas there are (a) hostile and/or food-bearing wildlife, (b) large wooded areas devoid of humans (or, at least, demarcated with warnings that all humans within must wear high-visibility vests) and (c) an abundance of soft, bullet-absorbing ground. For this reason, rurals see firearms as a useful tool that can be handled safely enough to not cause injury to humans or damage to human property. (Unless, of course, one is an outlaw who intends to do so.) In urban areas, by contrast, there is scarcely any direction at all in which one can point a muzzle without "flagging" something valuable or someone; either directly, or on the ricochet from the hard materials that are common in urban areas, or even penetrating through a wooden wall/floor/ceiling of your apartment. It is no surprise, then, that many urbans see no purpose to civilian firearms ownership whatsoever; and would never see such a thing without entering a rural area; and would thus have no empathy or respect whatsoever for their rural neighbors who are so wary of firearms restrictions.
Not a yank, have no knowledge of the US medical system.
In my own country the public system is single-payer with a user-pays "gap" in billing to disencentivise unnecessary treatments.
Private hospitals / providers exist in paralel with the public system.
> rural residents (a.k.a. "Red Tribe") generally prefer to be taxed less
Rural areas are very often net recipients of govt aid. There may be a dislike of govt spending in these parts but they still take the money.
> every service imaginable... negligible post-tax net income.
That's some fine hyperbole.
This is rather more true in abstract/rhetorical terms rather than concrete terms, especially on the spending side.
Oddly enough, I personally find that Thiel's support and stances in relation to Gawker vs. Hogan a bit contradictory to this dream. This is less a commentary on the lawsuit (I found Gawker detestable personally) but more how Thiel's Gawker vs. Hogan lawsuit embrace is a dip into the very same complex American legal system that usually is harshly criticized by libertarians.
The Economist's description of him as a "corporate Nietzschean" (https://www.economist.com/news/business/21699954-tech-billio...) to me seems more on the mark these days.
I don't know what feudalism is post-middle ages, but being opposed to multiculturalism is fairly common and wouldn't make anyone more or less likeable to most people than being in favour of multiculturalism.
If only Europe would learn...
In this case, even though I'm pretty far left by the standards of HN, I would have to point out that the "far right" hardly has a monopoly on political violence.
I see you are London-based, so it should be clarified that we are talking about American libertarianism. Your comment is difficult to parse in that context, as libertarians embrace far-right views here. The angle from which they arrive on those views is what defines them.
This is pretty far from being an absolute. You likely mean Libertarians, as in the Libertarian party, not libertarians in general. There are plenty of left leaning American libertarians, myself included. The Libertarian party has some weird ideas, but I would caution against conflating them with the extreme right. Libertarian is a value on a different political axis to left/right, and is counter to authoritarian.
nailer is saying that Thiel cannot be far-right because he identifies as a libertarian, but it's Thiel's far-right views that would make him far-right, not his identity as a libertarian.
I haven't seen anything you post refute that point. Look at the examples given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics - you'll see the KKK, EDL, Patriots of Ukraine, Blackshirts, etc - the common thread of these groups is their use of violence.
> Thiel's far-right views that would make him far-right
Thiel's views are fairly common libertarian / conservative views. The far right, is by nature, further to the right of regular right wing views.
Even the Libertarian Party (in the US) is not necessarily "far-right". Libertarianism in general almost always leans heavily left on social issues by definition of libertarianism, and the Libertarian Party line is no exception AFAICT.
This leaves the economic issues, and the full spectrum from anarcho-capitalists to socialist libertarians tends to identify with the Libertarian Party. Gary Johnson was/is somewhere in the middle-right, I'd guess.
I don't see any mainstream source that equates libertarianism with the far right - indeed, the far right (like the far left) embraces governmental authority over individuals, which libertarianism expressly rejects.
You are defining "far-right" to require the embrace of government authority, but as that page and the linked "Libertarianism in the United States" page[1] demonstrate, that is not a requirement.
For instance, the Tea Party purport to be anti-government and are considered to be "far-right", yet over 40% of them also identify as libertarian.
You've artificially constrained your definition to disqualify any counterexamples that Thiel has to support political violence to be "far-right".
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_S...
I've only linked to that page once. What part of it aren't I reading? The Libertarianism page doesn't discuss requirements to be in the far right at all. Why would it?
> Tea Party are considered to be "far-right"
By whom? The other page I linked to was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics. The Tea Party is very different from the groups that you see discussed there - eg the KKK, Blackshirts, EDL, etc.
Edit: the only mention of the Tea Party on that page is:
> the term hard right and Alt-right have been used to describe groups such as the Tea Party movement and the Patriot movement.[17][18]
Which is true, but doesn't support your argument. The vast majority of groups mentioned are violent groups, the term (and a completely unrelated term) being used to describe one non-violent group doesn't prove your point.
When you provide a source to support your argument and then disqualify examples from that source, it becomes a No True Scotsman.
He was asked to provide a reason why he thought Thiel was unlikable and he answered. You proceed to blatantly and outrageously twist his words. Nobody said he was evil or terrible. Don't pretend it was implied, either.
And I responded to the ridiculousness of such reasoning.
"Nobody said he was evil or terrible. Don't pretend it was implied, either."
Don't pretend it wasn't. It very clearly was in the article. In fact, the very apparent and specific implication is that he is so evil and terrible that by mere association with him, Hulk Hogan is also evil and terrible and deserves to have his privacy violated by the likes of Gawker, and that Hulk Hogan is therefore to blame for the alleged "chilling effect" on the R. Kelly reporting because he dared to stand up for himself.
The idea that such irredeemability seems to come from Thiel being associated with Trump makes this whole thing doubly ridiculous.
Put differently:
"What is wrong with you?"
Absolutely nothing is wrong with me. Absolutely everything is wrong with disliking someone because of an association with someone else who is associated with someone else who is subjectively believed by a portion of the country to be a bad person.
So, Gizmodo said they would return it to Apple, and paid the finder. Then they promptly returned it to Apple, directly contacting the employee who lost it and making arrangements.
J: You work at Apple, right?
G: Um, I mean I can't really talk too much right now.
J: I understand. We have a device, and we think that maybe you misplaced it at a bar, and we would like to give it back.
> Finder tried to locate the owner, and then contacted Apple multiple times
Give it to the police. No consumer-electronics publication required.
Is this the device? : http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone
They take the thing apart? So they "said they would return it", but not before taking the opportunity to fully evaluate the thing they decided to keep hold of?
Also, how diligent were they as self-appointed owner-finders?:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7731500/Steve-Jo...
https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/how-gizmodo-escaped-indictment-...
It's not Gizmodo's business to handle lost property, especially when they intend to gain something from the possession.
I think currently it stands at about 3-4 hours of comedy gold, whether it's intended to be or not is another subject entirely...