Red Mosquito • View topic

tragabigzanda · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 1:27 pm

b_i_revisited wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Where do y'all stand on the Gawker vs. Peter Thiel story? I'm team Thiel; I hope he brings Gawker to the ground.

I know I'm real late on this, but I'm Team Gawker with extreme prejudice. There's going to be a huge loophole cut into freedom of expression if Hulk Hogan ultimately wins his case, and even if he does, Thiel bankrolling lawsuits just to settle an unrelated personal vendetta is a dangerous perversion of justice.

This is ultimately my concern... that this precedent could not only encourage other members of the 0.01% to punish those they don't through case shopping, but it could also lead to devastating effects on free speech online. I believe there already have been lawsuits about online "hate speech" effecting the snowflake crowd and how institutions (schools and uni's in particular) are somewhat responsible for this. The UK might even arrest people for this behavior IIRC. It would not be out of the question for a anti-US, anti-capitalist Soros-type to start bankrolling these cases to try and force their own political views on society, which is essentially what Thiel has done (and the NRA has done successfully for decades).

I don't think Thiel is forcing his views on society at all. He's merely using his ample fortune to shit down an enemy; it's free-market economics used in place of the judicial system. I'd say the NYT consistently running positive pieces on Hillary, and deep-paging Bernie, is more "view forcey" than anything that's happened here. Thiel's view is basically "You attacked me personally, so I'll shut you up." I'm not concerned about it setting a precedent for more nefarious manipulation of the press.

Jorge · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 5:15 pm

Gawker Media is more than just Gawker the gossip site. They've put up a lot of great writing over the years. I have friends who write for Gawker sites. They've done some gross things, especially Gawker dot com. The Peter Thiel thing is inexcusable. But they filed for bankruptcy today, and I can't help feel a little sad.

tragabigzanda · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 6:53 pm

theplatypus wrote:

Gawker Media is more than just Gawker the gossip site. They've put up a lot of great writing over the years. I have friends who write for Gawker sites. They've done some gross things, especially Gawker dot com. The Peter Thiel thing is inexcusable. But they filed for bankruptcy today, and I can't help feel a little sad.

Kotaku, io9, Deadspin are all great. Lifehacker and Jezebel are mixed.

tragabigzanda · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 7:00 pm

Looks like they have a potential buyer, for less than $100M. Meanwhile they list their assets as between $50-100M, and liabilities between $100-$500M. That latter figure represents a pretty broad range. I wonder if it's because of multiple pending litigations?

BurtReynolds · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 7:12 pm

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

BurtReynolds · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 7:12 pm

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

BurtReynolds · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 7:15 pm

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

BurtReynolds · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 7:24 pm

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Green Habit · **Joined:** Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm **Posts:** 6932

tragabigzanda wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Gawker Media is more than just Gawker the gossip site. They've put up a lot of great writing over the years. I have friends who write for Gawker sites. They've done some gross things, especially Gawker dot com. The Peter Thiel thing is inexcusable. But they filed for bankruptcy today, and I can't help feel a little sad.

Kotaku, io9, Deadspin are all great. Lifehacker and Jezebel are mixed.

Deadspin's the only one that I can find interesting, and even then it's a bit hit or miss.

Green Habit · **Joined:** Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm **Posts:** 6932

BurtReynolds wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

...Thiel bankrolling lawsuits just to settle an unrelated personal vendetta is a dangerous perversion of justice.

I don't have a problem with this. I mean, obviously our justice system is a joke where money talks, but thats a far bigger problem.

I know what you're trying to say, but these two sentences read to me as exact opposites of each other.

BurtReynolds · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 8:01 pm

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

LoathedVermin72 · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 8:01 pm

I'll give you a problem.

tragabigzanda · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 8:30 pm

BurtReynolds wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Gawker Media is more than just Gawker the gossip site. They've put up a lot of great writing over the years. I have friends who write for Gawker sites. They've done some gross things, especially Gawker dot com. The Peter Thiel thing is inexcusable. But they filed for bankruptcy today, and I can't help feel a little sad.

Kotaku, io9, Deadspin are all great. Lifehacker and Jezebel are mixed.

Kotaku is slimy too, as is Jezebel. The others are mostly clickbait sites. they won't be missed and are easily replaced. Edit: of course, they'll probably still exist anyway after this, at least in name.

How Kotaku slimy? I'm not being facetious. Do they get paid for good reviews or something?

BurtReynolds · **Posted:** Fri June 10, 2016 9:38 pm

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

tragabigzanda · **Posted:** Mon August 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Thiel just wrote an op-ed on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/opini ... eft-region

Green Habit · **Joined:** Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm **Posts:** 6932

tragabigzanda wrote:

Thiel just wrote an op-ed on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/opini ... eft-region

I still say his proposed solution violates the First Amendment--especially when applied to third parties as Gawker. Here's the text of the bill he's supporting (bolded mine):

http://speier.house.gov/images/pdf/IPPA_Final.pdf

Quote:

Whoever knowingly uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to distribute a visual depiction of a person who is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image and who is engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or of the naked genitals or post-pubescent female nipple of a person, with reckless disregard for the person’s lack of consent to the distribution, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

There are four affirmative defenses, the only non-trivial one of which is the third: "This section shall not apply in the case of a visual depiction, the disclosure of which is in the bona fide public interest." But the First Amendment should not allow the law to determine what is a "bona fide public interest". And back to what what I bolded, how you define "reckless disregard" is also questionable.

I think in order for something like this to pass constitutional muster, you have to do two things:
--Limit it to behavior intended to harass.
--Make it content neutral, and not content-based toward sex and nudity.

(As an aside, I find the mention of "post-pubescent female nipple" laughable. One reason is as if censoring only the nipple really makes much of a difference. But the other is that distinguishing between the male and female nipples in general should bring into question Equal Protection Clause problems--but that's a debate for another day.)

tragabigzanda · **Posted:** Tue August 16, 2016 12:35 am

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Thiel just wrote an op-ed on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/opini ... eft-region

I still say his proposed solution violates the First Amendment--especially when applied to third parties as Gawker. Here's the text of the bill he's supporting (bolded mine):

http://speier.house.gov/images/pdf/IPPA_Final.pdf

Quote:

Whoever knowingly uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to distribute a visual depiction of a person who is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image and who is engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or of the naked genitals or post-pubescent female nipple of a person, with reckless disregard for the person’s lack of consent to the distribution, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

There are four affirmative defenses, the only non-trivial one of which is the third: "This section shall not apply in the case of a visual depiction, the disclosure of which is in the bona fide public interest." But the First Amendment should not allow the law to determine what is a "bona fide public interest". And back to what what I bolded, how you define "reckless disregard" is also questionable.

I think in order for something like this to pass constitutional muster, you have to do two things:
--Limit it to behavior intended to harass.
--Make it content neutral, and not content-based toward sex and nudity.

(As an aside, I find the mention of "post-pubescent female nipple" laughable. One reason is as if censoring only the nipple really makes much of a difference. But the other is that distinguishing between the male and female nipples in general should bring into question Equal Protection Clause problems--but that's a debate for another day.)

I agree with your note on making it content-neutral. "Intended to harass" is tougher for me to pin down; "intended to incite" might be more inclusive of the subject of a given story (e.g. Gawker wasn't trying to harass Hogan, but rather trying to incite web traffic with a salacious story).

And yea, free the nipple!

Green Habit · **Joined:** Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm **Posts:** 6932

tragabigzanda wrote:

"Intended to harass" is tougher for me to pin down; "intended to incite" might be more inclusive of the subject of a given story (e.g. Gawker wasn't trying to harass Hogan, but rather trying to incite web traffic with a salacious story).

Restricting inciting only passes First Amendment muster if it's inciting meant to create "imminent lawless action".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

tragabigzanda · **Posted:** Tue August 16, 2016 12:48 am

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

"Intended to harass" is tougher for me to pin down; "intended to incite" might be more inclusive of the subject of a given story (e.g. Gawker wasn't trying to harass Hogan, but rather trying to incite web traffic with a salacious story).

Restricting inciting only passes First Amendment muster if it's inciting meant to create "imminent lawless action".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Possibly circular logic here, but if the Intimate Privacy Protection Act passes, wouldn't that mean that articles of this ilk are inherently lawless? I suppose I'm out of my element here. But I'm still team Thiel.

Green Habit · **Joined:** Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm **Posts:** 6932

tragabigzanda wrote:

Possibly circular logic here, but if the Intimate Privacy Protection Act passes, wouldn't that mean that articles of this ilk are inherently lawless?

Possibly--as I said, the First Amendment is designed so the government shouldn't be allowed to decide which expressions are "inherently lawless."

tragabigzanda wrote:

I suppose I'm out of my element here. But I'm still team Thiel.

I think it's fine to be Team Thiel in the sense that those who seek to expose people's intimate matters without their consent should be shamed and condemned, and also be Team Gawker in the sense that this shouldn't be legally actionable.

I should also add that the act Gawker committed that got Thiel so pissed off at them in the first place (outing) is an act that, while morally evil in the current societal atmosphere, is also an act that almost everyone would agree is constitutionally protected.

Hulk Hogan & Peter Thiel v. Gawker

Who is online