The Gawker vs. Peter Thiel (via Hulk Hogan and others) is fascinating

Thiel, using his money to back lawsuits against Gawker to bankrupt it through the litigation process while keeping his name out of the fight is not a new way to battle media.  There have been laws in the past that block bankrolling litigation that is not related to you, but apparently we have nothing like that.  

Here's a link to Gawker's own coverage of Thiel, but a lot of other media has picked it up.  

This process has some major implications for reporting, free speech, and the free press.  

http://gawker.com/tag/peter-thiel

And here's why I think Gawker is doing good work. These are voices you don't get to hear often.

Warning: it's about abortion.

http://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395

Rocinante wrote:This process has some major implications for reporting, free speech, and the free press.  

I agree that it sucks when the Bill of Rights is eroded.

Counterpoint
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436674/gawkers-bankruptcy-threat-freedom-speech

Gawker is an absolutely garbage media outlet with zero journalistic integrity. I don't mind seeing it burn to the ground.

Rocinante wrote:And here's why I think Gawker is doing good work. These are voices you don't get to hear often.

Warning: it's about abortion.

http://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395

Sorry, I can't honestly read anything from jezebel. That's the al jizzear site for feminazis

I.B. Fine wrote:Counterpoint
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436674/gawkers-bankruptcy-threat-freedom-speech

That's not a counterpoint, it's a link. Why don't you state an opinion or something?

AnomanderRake wrote:Gawker is an absolutely garbage media outlet with zero journalistic integrity. I don't mind seeing it burn to the ground.

I see this a lot and I don't understand it. The site sources, they follow up, the make it clear when editorializing, the look at the back side of stories not just the leading narrative (FU TN). Yes they are known for raunchy click bait and they still do that but they have some good young journalists at that company.

Why do you think the opposite?

Rocinante wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:Gawker is an absolutely garbage media outlet with zero journalistic integrity. I don't mind seeing it burn to the ground.

I see this a lot and I don't understand it. The site sources, they follow up, the make it clear when editorializing, the look at the back side of stories not just the leading narrative (FU TN). Yes they are known for raunchy click bait and they still do that but they have some good young journalists at that company.

Why do you think the opposite?

I used to regularly visit some of their websites and have watched them go steadily downhill for years. When it's 90% garbage I just don't care about the occasional good piece written there.

Rocinante wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:Counterpoint
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436674/gawkers-bankruptcy-threat-freedom-speech

That's not a counterpoint, it's a link. Why don't you state an opinion or something?

Here's my opinion-I agree with this guy. Gawker crossed the line, they are entitled to publish what they like, but they are not free from consequences of publishing things purchased from black mailers and or defaming people.
I think a case like this puts "journalists" on notice, they need to be responsible.
I suppose you wouldn't mind someone, without your knowledge or consent, taking a video of you and your horse in compromising circumstances and blasting it across the internet.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

That's not a counterpoint, it's a link. Why don't you state an opinion or something?

Here's my opinion-I agree with this guy. Gawker crossed the line, they are entitled to publish what they like, but they are not free from consequences of publishing things purchased from black mailers and or defaming people.
I think a case like this puts "journalists" on notice, they need to be responsible.
I suppose you wouldn't mind someone, without your knowledge or consent, taking a video of you and your horse in compromising circumstances and blasting it across the internet.

I am all for responsible reporting. Stories like Travon Martin shouldn't have happened since this country is filled with people like Bob.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

That's not a counterpoint, it's a link. Why don't you state an opinion or something?

Here's my opinion-I agree with this guy. Gawker crossed the line, they are entitled to publish what they like, but they are not free from consequences of publishing things purchased from black mailers and or defaming people.
I think a case like this puts "journalists" on notice, they need to be responsible.
I suppose you wouldn't mind someone, without your knowledge or consent, taking a video of you and your horse in compromising circumstances and blasting it across the internet.

It's not about Hogan, maybe they deserved a judgement against them for that, (however if you want to go there, when you are a famous person and spend an inordinate amount of time talking about your sexual prowess, it could be argued that you opened the door). It's about someone unrelated to a case against a media company financing that case because of grievances related to legitimate reporting. He's trying to sue them out of existence with other people's cases because he has no case against them, just wants them to stop reporting on him and his friends.

If you don't find something wrong with that then you want to live in an oligarchy.

Did you read the article I linked? He addresses that, it happens all the time.
What's ACLU but a third party financing lawsuits? You ever complain about them?
....and if Gawker hadn't crossed the line, the case would have been thrown out.

What's ACLU but a third party financing lawsuits

Although they traverse a little to the extreme in their interpretation of it, the ACLU is primarily concerned with helping individuals who's human rights have been violated, but who cannot afford to defend themselves. That's a little different that using a case about someone else's sex tape to bankrupt a company you don't want reporting on you anymore. ACLU does not litigate to bankrupt companies that talk bad about the ACLU.

It's completely different and you know it. The more I think about it the more mad it makes me that you'd even equate the two. I hate dishonest argument.

And yes I read it. It's that same "they deserved it because they hurt my feewings" article.

Your article wrote:Sometimes, as happened to Peter Thiel and others, it comes in the form of campaigns against the private lives of private citizens, even a rape victim. Both types of campaigns deter individuals from participating even collaterally in public debate, and therefore chill the exercise of free-speech rights.

That is the biggest crybaby shit I have ever heard. Oh, they didn't say anything untrue, but they "chilled" free speech. Fuck you.

They shouldn't have outed Thiel. The revenge of the gay man. Just desserts.

Rocinante wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
Here's my opinion-I agree with this guy. Gawker crossed the line, they are entitled to publish what they like, but they are not free from consequences of publishing things purchased from black mailers and or defaming people.
I think a case like this puts "journalists" on notice, they need to be responsible.
I suppose you wouldn't mind someone, without your knowledge or consent, taking a video of you and your horse in compromising circumstances and blasting it across the internet.

It's not about Hogan, maybe they deserved a judgement against them for that, (however if you want to go there, when you are a famous person and spend an inordinate amount of time talking about your sexual prowess, it could be argued that you opened the door). It's about someone unrelated to a case against a media company financing that case because of grievances related to legitimate reporting. He's trying to sue them out of existence with other people's cases because he has no case against them, just wants them to stop reporting on him and his friends.

If you don't find something wrong with that then you want to live in an oligarchy.

Sounds like a great new business if you ask me. That's why he's a billionaire

Here Blanch, play with these and let the adults talk.