Re:Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction
by partiallypro on Friday June 10, 2016 @03:51PM
(#11879468)
> The tape of Hogan had racist comments on it, which are arguably in the public interest
Absolute nonsense. So if, let's say, Jennifer Lawrence had a tattoo on her butt that said something derogatory, suddenly leaking her nude photos is ok? I mean, she is a public figure and kids look up to her! What she does in the privacy of her home is absolutely public information, because of this. If they -really- only were doing it for the public's benefit they would have just had that snippet, with the audio; but they didn't, they published the full tape.
> That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta.
Do you think Hogan suing or anyone else suing for this type of thing is -not- a vendetta? Hogan was already wealthy, he didn't need Gawker's cash. He did it to take them down. Are we to not allow him to sue because that's technically a "vendetta?"
I mean, Gawker did a similar thing to Thiel by outing him to the public. That case would never hold up; so instead of going down that path he waited in the wings; I don't see how this is different than something like a class action where outside money is funding a suit.
People need to get the idea out of their head that "outside money" is inherently bad. The ACLU, FIRE, and tons of civil liberty organizations are "outside money." Be careful what you wish for.
Absolute nonsense. So if, let's say, Jennifer Lawrence had a tattoo on her butt that said something derogatory, suddenly leaking her nude photos is ok? I mean, she is a public figure and kids look up to her! What she does in the privacy of her home is absolutely public information, because of this. If they -really- only were doing it for the public's benefit they would have just had that snippet, with the audio; but they didn't, they published the full tape.
> That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta.
Do you think Hogan suing or anyone else suing for this type of thing is -not- a vendetta? Hogan was already wealthy, he didn't need Gawker's cash. He did it to take them down. Are we to not allow him to sue because that's technically a "vendetta?"
I mean, Gawker did a similar thing to Thiel by outing him to the public. That case would never hold up; so instead of going down that path he waited in the wings; I don't see how this is different than something like a class action where outside money is funding a suit.
People need to get the idea out of their head that "outside money" is inherently bad. The ACLU, FIRE, and tons of civil liberty organizations are "outside money." Be careful what you wish for.