• Gawker case: Thiel is 'serious threat' to press freedom
    10 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37098518[/url]
No he isn't. He wouldn't have been able to use his billionaire voodoo if they hadn't violated Hogan's privacy by uploading a private sex tape of him and then refusing to take it down even after a judge told them to. He will never be able to use his billionaire black magic unjustly. The real scary bit is that Gawker could have gotten away with it without Thiel because their corporate money bank is greater than Hulk Hogan's as an individual. So they would have just had to keep up the trial shit until the expenses got so bad that Hogan had to drop it. The scary thing isn't that a billionaire can fund a case, it's that it can be necessary even for a completely just cause.
Gawker was a threat to journalism so I think it's justified in this case.
imagine justifying an invasion of privacy and calling it legitimate journalism
Kevin Rawlinson needs firing for writing this trash, waste of my money.
Gawker needs to hurry up and die. I don't know why there are people defending them over "freedom of the press" when they unironically said under oath that they would publish the sex tape of a fucking four year old. Freedom of the press should not be and is not unlimited. It isn't a free pass for you to violate the privacy and lives of whoever you see fit. Thiel is a cunt don't get me wrong, but it was nice seeing him bankroll a demonstrably good thing. Without him, Hogan likely wouldn't recieve justice. Like it or not this trial needed to happen. And the icing on the cake is the fact that it ALL could have been avoided if Gawker complied with the fucking court order to remove the damn video!
You know, you can be against Gawker without supporting what people like Thiel want to do. Gawker is horrible and I honestly struggle to believe AJ Daleurio would really say he'd publish a 5 year olds sex tape, but he did and they do deserve to get shuttered for that. But Thiel didn't do this to help the field of Journalism be a better place. He didn't do it to shut gawker down for integral reasons. He did it because they insulted and outed him. I get why he was mad, I get why they're in the wrong, but it feels so very gross to me to buddy up next to a monster like Thiel for the sake of just shuttering [B]ONE[/B] shitpile of a website. I can't be sure, but I strongly suspect there's more action on the way from the likes of Thiel. Wired.com wrote a good piece about this, but I don't feel like many people really want to question the value of this decision.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50897198]But Thiel didn't do this to help the field of Journalism be a better place. He didn't do it to shut gawker down for integral reasons. He did it because they insulted and outed him. I get why he was mad, I get why they're in the wrong, but it feels so very gross to me to buddy up next to a monster like Thiel for the sake of just shuttering [B]ONE[/B] shitpile of a website.[/QUOTE] This would have mattered if he was unjustly manipulating the way the case was being treated. He didn't. He just allowed it to continue by supplying the victim with money, which really should never have been necessary in the first place because it allows big corporations to fuck over individuals who don't happen to have backing from evil billionaires. This is not a slippery slope that allows evil billionaires to take down any old website they find offensive. Thiel was only able to do it because Gawker did absolutely everything wrong. Everyone who have had the ability to, have been completely justified in fucking them over however much they could, for whatever reason.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50897259]This would have mattered if he was unjustly manipulating the way the case was being treated. He didn't. He just allowed it to continue by supplying the victim with money, which really should never have been necessary in the first place because it allows big corporations to fuck over individuals who don't happen to have backing from evil billionaires. This is not a slippery slope that allows evil billionaires to take down any old website they find offensive. Thiel was only able to do it because Gawker did absolutely everything wrong. Everyone who have had the ability to, have been completely justified in fucking them over however much they could, for whatever reason.[/QUOTE] I just don't feel that's true. I feel if you took Gawker out of this case, and told people "Hey, this news site is getting sued, and a billionaire is funding the lawsuit because he felt insulted by them years ago" people would go "That's wrong". Yes, Gawker did wrong. Yes Gawker deserved to get shuttered for that. I do not stand in opposition to that. But we cannot know if Thiel did or didn't influence the case. We just know he kept it going, and kept the best lawyers available at Hogans disposal. I just feel a dangerous precedent has been set with this case.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50897287]"Hey, this news site is getting sued, and a billionaire is funding the lawsuit because he felt insulted by them years ago" people would go "That's wrong".[/QUOTE] Would it really be wrong? It would be silly and perhaps funny if a billionaire tried doing it [I]unjustly[/I], as in, funding a lawsuit that ends up falling to the ground. But in every case where a corporation has actually done something illegal, I really can't see how it can be wrong for anyone, no matter their reasons, to save the victim from being forced to surrender. [QUOTE]But we cannot know if Thiel did or didn't influence the case.[/QUOTE] If he was able to actually [I]influence[/I] the case, then yes that would be a huge, [I]huge[/I] problem and straight up corruption. [QUOTE]I just feel a dangerous precedent has been set with this case.[/QUOTE] Unless we're talking about actual corruption here, then no billionaire is ever going to be able to take on anyone unless they've done something illegal. In which case it really shouldn't be necessary for a wronged individual to have to pay for justice. That's the real dangerous precedent that we already have. A clearly wronged individual sometimes has to choose between ruining themselves financially and dropping a clear cut case. Thiel not supporting the case and Gawker getting away with it would have been far more dangerous, and far more terrifying.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50895933]imagine justifying an invasion of privacy and calling it legitimate journalism[/QUOTE] "This is BBC 1, the Baby Butt Cry Network" How about leaving your feeling out of your pieces and start reporting objective news instead of coloring everything not nailed down with your political bullshit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.