[QUOTE=Ithon;50495151][media]https://twitter.com/notch/status/741352693248069632[/media][/QUOTE]
[I]Oooh snap![/I]
[editline]11th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fireblade RX7;50494431]Fuck Jalopnik and their uneducated clickbait recycled crap journalism too, plenty of other automotive sites out there that are actually worth looking at.[/QUOTE]
Jalopnik is the Kotaku of car blogs, so yea... they can all fuck right off, as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I'm even starting to dislike Doug DeMuro, and the guy isn't really *that* bad on his own.
[QUOTE=person11;50493787]
i am worried that it could go further than that, with any rich person suing any media outlet that says bad things about them into oblivion, not by winning, but by keeping them in court with legal fees until the end of time[/QUOTE]
I get what you mean but isn't that already how the US court system works anyways?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50494388][url]http://www.wired.com/2016/06/disapproval-matrix-billionaires-ruining-media/[/url]
[url]http://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker/[/url]
You're not going to win any sympathy here with that argument, I've made it before and been told it's not relevant.
It's 100% relevant.
The man who runs a freedom of speech and journalist protection foundation is shutting down speech, not for any good reasons, but for vengeance. I get that Gawker is shit, but this isn't really something to cheer about in this context IMO.
Gawker's terrible but shadowy lawsuits are not worth cheering over and I think it's a little bit more than sad to do so.[/QUOTE]
Ya know I'm big supporter of free speech, but I'd have to say posting a sex video is a place where I cross the line, just how in the hell is helping a man get justice a suppression of free speech? The guy had ulterior motives, good for him, those motives just made justice work for once.
I don't care if the guy is literally hitler, we should acknowledge good acts, does that mean the past is wiped away and he's magically a great person? No of course not. He did a good thing, for the wrong reasons, in the right way, he's still shady as fuck but trying to negate a good act because of that is petty spite.
[QUOTE=person11;50493375]What if, instead of releasing a sex tape, they made a perfectly valid article criticizing another billionaire? Would we be ok with them suing the company into oblivion? Will we so willingly and happily discard the first amendment?[/QUOTE]
You realize that you're saying that if we can sue people for releasing a private sex tape, then it would logically follow that we can also sue for perfectly valid critical articles? The reason Hulk was able to sue was exactly and specifically because they released a private sex tape. If they had done anything other than that, then a hundred billionaires wouldn't have been able to sue them, because of free speech.
[QUOTE=person11;50493452]What I mean is, Hogan could have sued them with his own money easily[/QUOTE]
No, he could not. Or maybe he could, but Gawker was counting on him not being able to. The idea is that he'd drop the charges as soon as his own expenses would exceed what he could possibly pay for. The travesty here is not that a vengeful billionaire can step in to fund a case like this. The travesty is that a legitimately wronged party can be forced to give up his case due to not being a billionaire.
[QUOTE=person11;50493787]if the precedent that is set is that rich people can team up to protect against privacy violations, that's fine[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's exactly what this is. Have you considered the precedent that could have been set without the funding? If Hogan ended up withdrawing because he didn't have money to fund his own case, it would set the precedent that large media outlets can freely break the law against individuals that can't pay for legal action.
[QUOTE=person11;50493787]i am worried that it could go further than that, with any rich person suing any media outlet that says bad things about them into oblivion, not by winning, but by keeping them in court with legal fees until the end of time[/QUOTE]
Surely, this could happen too. And it would fucking suck as well. The two extremes at each end can both be terrible. There's the on-going story about how H3H3 is getting sued for copyright infringement because some dude didn't like a video that was made about him. And that sucks. But that doesn't mean we have to shun anything that even reminds us of that possibility, like when a vindictive billionaire funds an absolutely legit case that has every right to win.
[QUOTE=person11;50493911][Thiel] could have sued them himself instead of hiding behind hulk hogan[/QUOTE]
No. He could not. He literally could not do that because they didn't release a private sex tape with him in it that they then refused to remove even after a judge told them to.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
