> Free speech --> Sue a magazine

Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from being held to account for your speech.

That's exactly what it means; it's freedom from being held to account by at least some groups. Which ones being a matter of debate.

No, it isn't up for debate.

Free speech is only an unalienable right, in the US, from the government. Not facebook, not google, and certainly not individuals suing a private entity.

Everything else stems from the public and historical landmark court cases related to free speech- and the benches of the supreme court have staunchly defended freedom of speech from the government.

> Free speech is only an unalienable right, in the US, from the government.

You’re confusing the concept of Free Speech and the law codified in the First Amendment rights. Free Speech as a concept is (by necessity) much broader (both as defined in the declaration of human rights, and as envisaged by the thinkers who originally proposed it). It doesn’t mean “there’s no accountability whatsoever” but it does mean that there’s an active duty to uphold individuals’ rights to articulate themselves. Unfortunately this confusion is extremely common — even the Wikipedia article restricts it to government intervention in the opening paragraph (but then broadens it).

That's exactly what I'm saying. The writers of the Bill of Rights took the general concept of Free Speech and debated it, resulting in a concrete implementation in the form of the First Amendment.

And that debate is ongoing; for example, you can be held accountable by the government in certain cases (see "Seven dirty words").

I guess it depends which country you're in. For many Europeans, free speech means that you're allowed to voice your opinion but are forbidden from insulting people just for the sake of insulting them. For journalists, they are allowed to print what they think but not knowingly lie or defame people with untrue stories.

Free speech isn't absolute, you somewhere have to draw a line determining where free speech ends and the protection of an individual's rights begin.

held to account != able to be sued legally. i agree that getting protested is one thug but getting sued and shut down is a legal issue which is contrary to free speech

No, it's not. Freedom of speech doesn't cover slander/libel. Freedom of speech means government can't put you in a cage for your expressed ideas (with few exceptions, like yelling fire in a theater).

Weird, because in Gawker's case, he didn't have a case for libel or slander. They outed him as gay. I considered their actions despicable, but they didn't lie and that's why he didn't have a case. And that's why he had to use Hulk Hogan to exact revenge, which goes to show that a single guy with too much money can essentially reign unchecked in today's America.

That's not good, no matter if you happen to agree politically with said guy with too much money at this particular point in time.

In your ideal society, you would rather see Hogan lose in court for lack of money?

Ideally all cases would be decided on their merits irrespective of funding. But if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped?

What is frightening about Thiel’s involvement case is the playbook: destroy media companies that have been critical or embarrassed you, by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous.

> if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped?

Maybe. Thiel funded the destruction of Gawker for their crime against Hogan. He probably wouldn't've funded it if he hadn't had a personal grudge against Gawker, sure, but Hogan's lawsuit was entirely legitimate. If there hadn't been a legitimate lawsuit against Gawker, only illegitimate ones, would Thiel have funded those? We really can't say.

> by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous.

Did he actually do this? (all and any, even if frivolous)

If he extracts his revenge by helping people that legitimately believe that they had their rights trampled seek justice, is it not a net benefit to society regardless of his personal motives?

In my ideal society, lawyers wouldn't cost and arm and a leg or at least government would make sure individuals could sue corporations if there's a solid case.

Essentially, the bigger issue here is that Gawker could hide behind a bunch of lawyers even when they knew they were doing something despicable. Take that away, and things get fairer pretty quickly.

Sounds shiny. How would government determine if there’s a solid case? Some kind of formal hearing?

> yelling fire in a theater

This is not the current standard. You can yell fire in a crowded theater all you want (probably). We no longer use the "clear and present danger" standard, instead Brandenburg v. Ohio changed it to be "imminent lawless action"[1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#the-decisi...

> like yelling fire in a theater

I hate that this example is always used. Yelling fire in a theator for a laugh isn't "expressing ideas". It's a kind of social fraud: in some sense we depend on each other to make society work and someone shouting that our lives are in danger when they are not is violating this trust. Not by expressing some philosophical ideal but by exclaiming something they know to be false.

Yelling fire in a theater expresses the idea that there is a fire in the theater, whether it's true or not. It's a good example because it's a pretty bad and at best worthless thing to express, and because it has been used before (Schenck v. United States) when free speech has been abridged where the speech in question wasn't categorically not covered, just dangerous and unmerited enough to be considered illegal anyway. It is considered a well motivated abridgment.

There's nothing about the constitutional idea of free speech that says it has to be of philosophical value or true.

> yelling fire in a theater

Just googled this. Thanks for bringing it up, I hadn't heard about this case before.

this example was originally made by a judge who locked up Jewish protestors to an American war for handing out anti war pamphlets...

there’s a difference between true free speech and even what the us government considers free speech..

Nah, if you make slanderous or libelous statements, suing is a perfectly fine remedy.

When you (not personally you, every one of us) see such a discrepancy, we have a choice: either label the person who displays it as "stupid" or "lying", or question our assumptions about their beliefs or actions.

In particular, a lot of people who align themselves with libertarianism quite commonly have their views simplified to an absurd extent. If a person advocates for "free speech", do you necessarily think that they advocate for everyone being able to publish anything at all, without any repercussions whatsoever? If a person says "capitalism rules", do you honestly think that he believes that no company should be regulated in any way?

I think that at the point where you simplify a person's political views to two-word formulas, you may have already lost most of the knowledge of what they actually believe in.

For me, it is not a free speech issue, it is just eye opening how personal he takes Gawker's case and how vengeful he could be, which really reveals some interesting aspects of his personality as a billionaire.

I believe they acquired / stole / bought a stolen sex tape and published it. Freedom of the press (which is the freedom we're talking about) doesn't cover illegality.

Furthermore, it was a civil suit, not a criminal suit. You're talking tort law, not criminal law, which has a lower standard of proof.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. Say some guy stole nudes from your sister / mother / daughter and posted it on the internet for profit, do you think he should be free from liability of his actions? I would think not.