Some questions for those who are cheering Gawker's demise.

Another great example of this is the Las Vegas Review Journal. When people with money silence the news, everyone loses...

The Gawker situation was deplorable. I visit a lot of progressive blogs, and it was shocking how many people considered it to be only a nasty gossip blog. True, it did have stories like that, and the readership was really upset at the Hogan and Thiel stories when they were published. However, Hogan getting 140 million was probably one of the worst judgements I've heard of. True, his career was harmed because the spotlight was shone on him, but that wasn't because of the sex tape. He fell out of favor due to his racist rants that became public. That's when he was dropped and no one would touch him with a 10 foot pole. The fact a millionaire or even a group of millionaires can come together to put a news organization out of business with frivolous lawsuits should be frightening to everyone.

nin wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 21:00:

Some questions for those who are cheering Gawker's demise.

Another great example of this is the Las Vegas Review Journal. When people with money silence the news, everyone loses...

Gawker.com was terrible. It had terrible articles, far worse than even the Hogan one.

But what Thiel did was worse. He isn't the only billionaire trying to use unrelated court cases for revenge (Mother Jones had it happen, too), and Gawker isn't the only site he's been going after.

It's always so weird to me that the freedom of speech troops aren't realizing that billionaires using unrelated cases to punish websites for perfectly valid stories (though Gawker's about Thiel was very shitty) will just silence people by making them think twice about what they say about billionaires.

Gawker.com dying isn't bad. The other sites will live, though anyone else laid off is absolutely bad. Cheering on a billionaire silencing a media corporation through an unrelated court case in which he manipulated the plaintiff, simply because you dislike the reviews one site writes about your favorite video game, though...

It's been surprising how many seemingly very short sighted people celebrated this. Someone very rich can shut down a news organisation they have a grudge against ... no way that precedent could ever bit non-billionaires in the ass!

Saboth wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 21:29:
The Gawker situation was deplorable. I visit a lot of progressive blogs, and it was shocking how many people considered it to be only a nasty gossip blog. True, it did have stories like that, and the readership was really upset at the Hogan and Thiel stories when they were published. However, Hogan getting 140 million was probably one of the worst judgements I've heard of. True, his career was harmed because the spotlight was shone on him, but that wasn't because of the sex tape. He fell out of favor due to his racist rants that became public. That's when he was dropped and no one would touch him with a 10 foot pole. The fact a millionaire or even a group of millionaires can come together to put a news organization out of business with frivolous lawsuits should be frightening to everyone.

Nick Denton, (edit: former) owner of Gawker, is a fantastically wealthy man, and he had no trouble siccing his highly-paid lawyers on anyone smaller than him when they had issues with Gawker. He just finally poked a bigger fish in Thiel.

mag wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 22:54:

Saboth wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 21:29:
The Gawker situation was deplorable. I visit a lot of progressive blogs, and it was shocking how many people considered it to be only a nasty gossip blog. True, it did have stories like that, and the readership was really upset at the Hogan and Thiel stories when they were published. However, Hogan getting 140 million was probably one of the worst judgements I've heard of. True, his career was harmed because the spotlight was shone on him, but that wasn't because of the sex tape. He fell out of favor due to his racist rants that became public. That's when he was dropped and no one would touch him with a 10 foot pole. The fact a millionaire or even a group of millionaires can come together to put a news organization out of business with frivolous lawsuits should be frightening to everyone.

Nick Denton, (edit: former) owner of Gawker, is a fantastically wealthy man, and he had no trouble siccing his highly-paid lawyers on anyone smaller than him when they had issues with Gawker. He just finally poked a bigger fish in Thiel.

Agreed. The state of journalism has become deplorable over the last few decades. It's virtually all editorializing and scandal and e-tainment now. It used to be just about the facts. Most of it was quite dry, but it also fell in line with the public's right to know. The public has a right - and a need - to know if a serial killer is on the loose in their hometown. They do not, however, need to know who's schtuping who. Why does the public need to know that? If I had my way, rules would be a hell of a lot tighter for all news organizations. Christ, just look at post 9/11 when the so-called objective media was cheerleading Bushco's drum beat for war. Too many people have had their lives ruined, or even lost, because of irresponsible media. So yes, good riddance to bad rubbish like Gawker.

Thiel is just one of the first. There are plenty of billionaires who hold grudges. This should be an extremely worrisome situation for everyone, but apparently as long as it's done to a "shitty blog", few people care.

It's the same kind of thinking the FBI and the government keep exploiting the shit out of in their efforts to completely nullify the Constitution.

The bad always outweighs the good. No group that pulls shit like the Condé Nast mess deserves moral support, regardless of how much you dislike their enemy as well. They gave their opponents an easy target with indefensible articles and paid for it. Maybe in their new careers they find a stronger moral compass and try again. The problem with how the legal system is disproportionately benefiting the rich is a completely separate issue that will not improve regardless of gawkers state of existence. They were too busy punishing homesexuals they disagree with by airing their personal secrets to seriously tackle the legal system anyways.

Edit: This article lays it out better than I can
This comment was edited on Aug 24, 2016, 00:47.

Saboth wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 21:29:
The Gawker situation was deplorable. I visit a lot of progressive blogs, and it was shocking how many people considered it to be only a nasty gossip blog. True, it did have stories like that, and the readership was really upset at the Hogan and Thiel stories when they were published. However, Hogan getting 140 million was probably one of the worst judgements I've heard of. True, his career was harmed because the spotlight was shone on him, but that wasn't because of the sex tape. He fell out of favor due to his racist rants that became public. That's when he was dropped and no one would touch him with a 10 foot pole. The fact a millionaire or even a group of millionaires can come together to put a news organization out of business with frivolous lawsuits should be frightening to everyone.

That's the nature of capitalist society, once you acccept an ideology where a tiny minority of people can have all the money in society and believe they "earned" it legitimately it's game over.

The reality is if you are for massive economic inequality what you see is inevitable.

Beamer wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 21:38:

nin wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 21:00:

Some questions for those who are cheering Gawker's demise.

Another great example of this is the Las Vegas Review Journal. When people with money silence the news, everyone loses...

Gawker.com was terrible. It had terrible articles, far worse than even the Hogan one.

But what Thiel did was worse. He isn't the only billionaire trying to use unrelated court cases for revenge (Mother Jones had it happen, too), and Gawker isn't the only site he's been going after.

It's always so weird to me that the freedom of speech troops aren't realizing that billionaires using unrelated cases to punish websites for perfectly valid stories (though Gawker's about Thiel was very shitty) will just silence people by making them think twice about what they say about billionaires.

Gawker.com dying isn't bad. The other sites will live, though anyone else laid off is absolutely bad. Cheering on a billionaire silencing a media corporation through an unrelated court case in which he manipulated the plaintiff, simply because you dislike the reviews one site writes about your favorite video game, though...

Jeez Beamer, the courts ruled the tape protected speech, but Theil kept attacking. Gawker dying is bad, even if did have some questionable stories. Gawker did good work too, and all those people who lost their jobs didn't deserve to. This will just embolden plutocrats into attacking more and more, and will have a chilling effect on journalists. This was classic SLAPP tactics by Thiel, but because he used proxies, he's safe? This isn't how it should have turned out, and we should all be worried. No good came from this at all.

Cutter wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 23:20:
Agreed. The state of journalism has become deplorable over the last few decades. It's virtually all editorializing and scandal and e-tainment now. It used to be just about the facts. Most of it was quite dry, but it also fell in line with the public's right to know. The public has a right - and a need - to know if a serial killer is on the loose in their hometown. They do not, however, need to know who's schtuping who. Why does the public need to know that? If I had my way, rules would be a hell of a lot tighter for all news organizations. Christ, just look at post 9/11 when the so-called objective media was cheerleading Bushco's drum beat for war. Too many people have had their lives ruined, or even lost, because of irresponsible media. So yes, good riddance to bad rubbish like Gawker.

WTF, Cutter. If you want stricter rules for the press, move to Russia. It's not hard to find countries out their that limit freedom of the press. If you find that so fucking attractive, move.

Bonus: Game prices and vodka are hella cheaper in Russia than in Canada.

Creston wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 23:30:
Thiel is just one of the first. There are plenty of billionaires who hold grudges. This should be an extremely worrisome situation for everyone, but apparently as long as it's done to a "shitty blog", few people care.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

NegaDeath wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 23:58:
The bad always outweighs the good. No group that pulls shit like the Condé Nast mess deserves moral support, regardless of how much you dislike their enemy as well. They gave their opponents an easy target with indefensible articles and paid for it. Maybe in their new careers they find a stronger moral compass and try again. The problem with how the legal system is disproportionately benefiting the rich is a completely separate issue that will not improve regardless of gawkers state of existence. They were too busy punishing homesexuals they disagree with by airing their personal secrets to seriously tackle the legal system anyways.

Edit: This article lays it out better than I can

The Nazis and the KKK do not deserve moral support, and yet their speech is fully protected. How much you value protected speech is not measured against speech you agree with; it's measured against deplorable speech. You're siding with authoritarians and the religious right with your comments. Is that your intention?

Gawker was no paragon of journalism, but that's exactly why they need fucking protection. Free speech isn't for Better Homes and Gardens or Crossword Monthly. It is exactly for outlets like Gawker that push the boundaries.

One last post (yes, I know I posted too much in this thread).

All the fuckers over at Ars who danced on Gawker's grave, turned around not 2 days later and defended Backpage's posting of sex trafficking ads as protected speech. Mind boggling.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 08:07:
One last post (yes, I know I posted too much in this thread).

All the fuckers over at Ars who danced on Gawker's grave, turned around not 2 days later and defended Backpage's posting of sex trafficking ads as protected speech. Mind boggling.

They did? Where? And really, all of them?

Oh, and regarding the "but it was ruled free speech, so why has this even gone to trial?" bit: I wish more people knew what "Preliminary injunction" and "Prior restraint" means.

This comment was edited on Aug 24, 2016, 09:18.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 07:43:

Beamer wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 21:38:

nin wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 21:00:

Some questions for those who are cheering Gawker's demise.

Another great example of this is the Las Vegas Review Journal. When people with money silence the news, everyone loses...

Gawker.com was terrible. It had terrible articles, far worse than even the Hogan one.

But what Thiel did was worse. He isn't the only billionaire trying to use unrelated court cases for revenge (Mother Jones had it happen, too), and Gawker isn't the only site he's been going after.

It's always so weird to me that the freedom of speech troops aren't realizing that billionaires using unrelated cases to punish websites for perfectly valid stories (though Gawker's about Thiel was very shitty) will just silence people by making them think twice about what they say about billionaires.

Gawker.com dying isn't bad. The other sites will live, though anyone else laid off is absolutely bad. Cheering on a billionaire silencing a media corporation through an unrelated court case in which he manipulated the plaintiff, simply because you dislike the reviews one site writes about your favorite video game, though...

Jeez Beamer, the courts ruled the tape protected speech, but Theil kept attacking. Gawker dying is bad, even if did have some questionable stories. Gawker did good work too, and all those people who lost their jobs didn't deserve to. This will just embolden plutocrats into attacking more and more, and will have a chilling effect on journalists. This was classic SLAPP tactics by Thiel, but because he used proxies, he's safe? This isn't how it should have turned out, and we should all be worried. No good came from this at all.

I agree with you, I'm trying to temper my argument before certain usual suspects come in and start accusing me of always defending the media and hating free speech and being an SJW and blah blah blah.

We can discuss how terrible Thiel's actions were, but people will always try to spin it to how terrible Gawker was, and I was trying to take that argument away before it was used, because it isn't relevant.

Not to mention, again, most of those "free speech" types hate Gawker solely because they have some weird misguided anger at Kotaku for things Kotaku didn't even do.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 07:48:

Cutter wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 23:20:
Agreed. The state of journalism has become deplorable over the last few decades. It's virtually all editorializing and scandal and e-tainment now. It used to be just about the facts. Most of it was quite dry, but it also fell in line with the public's right to know. The public has a right - and a need - to know if a serial killer is on the loose in their hometown. They do not, however, need to know who's schtuping who. Why does the public need to know that? If I had my way, rules would be a hell of a lot tighter for all news organizations. Christ, just look at post 9/11 when the so-called objective media was cheerleading Bushco's drum beat for war. Too many people have had their lives ruined, or even lost, because of irresponsible media. So yes, good riddance to bad rubbish like Gawker.

WTF, Cutter. If you want stricter rules for the press, move to Russia. It's not hard to find countries out their that limit freedom of the press. If you find that so fucking attractive, move.

Bonus: Game prices and vodka are hella cheaper in Russia than in Canada.

Oh give me a fucking break. I dearly hope you and your get fucked over by the media someday simply because they think screwing you over is a great way to make some money and then see how you feel. As far as I'm concerned the press shouldn't have a fucking right to anything. People's right to privacy trumps theirs any day. So if you hate people's right to privacy so much then YOU move to fucking Russia where they don't have any. At least in America that's still considered a reasonable expectation.

Cutter wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 12:31:

jdreyer wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 07:48:

Cutter wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 23:20:
Agreed. The state of journalism has become deplorable over the last few decades. It's virtually all editorializing and scandal and e-tainment now. It used to be just about the facts. Most of it was quite dry, but it also fell in line with the public's right to know. The public has a right - and a need - to know if a serial killer is on the loose in their hometown. They do not, however, need to know who's schtuping who. Why does the public need to know that? If I had my way, rules would be a hell of a lot tighter for all news organizations. Christ, just look at post 9/11 when the so-called objective media was cheerleading Bushco's drum beat for war. Too many people have had their lives ruined, or even lost, because of irresponsible media. So yes, good riddance to bad rubbish like Gawker.

WTF, Cutter. If you want stricter rules for the press, move to Russia. It's not hard to find countries out their that limit freedom of the press. If you find that so fucking attractive, move.

Bonus: Game prices and vodka are hella cheaper in Russia than in Canada.

Oh give me a fucking break. I dearly hope you and your get fucked over by the media someday simply because they think screwing you over is a great way to make some money and then see how you feel. As far as I'm concerned the press shouldn't have a fucking right to anything. People's right to privacy trumps theirs any day. So if you hate people's right to privacy so much then YOU move to fucking Russia where they don't have any. At least in America that's still considered a reasonable expectation.

You posted FIVE MINUTES EARLIER your wonderment at government agencies getting away with stupid stuff. It took you 5 minutes to go from "I never understand how these agencies can just do stuff like this" to "the press shouldn't have a fucking right to anything". Do you think these aren't connected?

You are astonishing.