[starman]

So Gawker is dead, and I couldn't be happier. It was a vile, disgusting internet bully and I'd dance (or pee) on their grave if I could. Seeing them taken down was probably my single-most happiest internet moment of 2016.

Over the last couple of days, I've seen people saying that Thiel's takedown of Gawker is "troubling". I don't see that. First off, Gawker thought they were untouchable. I think that was more troubling than Thiel taking them down. But Gawker did some horrendous stuff. If you want to read a short list, here's a link for you:

https://pando.com/2016/08/23/tech-re...63160cf411b6e/

But this is what I don't get. When do publications become untouchable, and hide behind the first amendment? And people get ticked at Gawker for what they're going, but when they're taken down for that very same shit "journalism", they cry out against the billionaire that Gawker f*d with. The word "chilling" is used. Get over yourself. Most web and print publications don't cross the lines that Gawker did. This isn't "tabloid" journalism, this is screwing with people's lives outright.

So I will not cry for Gawker. I never visited their site unless I clicked a link before realizing what I clicked, and I don't support their sister sites either. Adios, and good riddance.

Thoughts?

[subego]

Freedom of the press is not an invitation to violate copyright. Case closed.

Gawker can suck it.

[OreoCookie]

@starman
I think on the large scale you're wrong, starman. We've had a thread on Thiel's involvement a while back, and I remember I was one of the few who dissented. Essentially what many people wrote was that given how vile Gawker was, it was ok to bring them down by any means necessary. Your post reads as if you fall into that camp as well. I think what Thiel did is immoral and wrong, although not illegal. What Gawker did on a regular basis was morally questionable, although not illegal. And one doesn't compensate for the other.

Originally Posted by subego 

Freedom of the press is not an invitation to violate copyright. Case closed.

Copyright?? I wasn't a reader of Gawker, but AFAIK the biggest controversies were connected to them invading the privacy of others, bullying, etc. Were they also scraping other sites for content?

[subego]

Hogan owns the copyright to his sex tape.

[P]

Not to rehash that thread again, enjoyable as it was, but you can't drop something like this and expect me to not respond:

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@starman
I think on the large scale you're wrong, starman. We've had a thread on Thiel's involvement a while back, and I remember I was one of the few who dissented. Essentially what many people wrote was that given how vile Gawker was, it was ok to bring them down by any means necessary. Your post reads as if you fall into that camp as well. I think what Thiel did is immoral and wrong, although not illegal. What Gawker did on a regular basis was morally questionable, although not illegal. And one doesn't compensate for the other.

See, what Gawker did was illegal. A court said so. When people disagree about what is legal, we have courts to adjudicate the matter.

The morality (and, let's be fair, gloating) aspect came in because, in my view, Gawker has been doing illegal things for a long time and got away with it because their pockets are deeper than those of the wronged. Suddenly they came up against someone with pockets deeper than theirs.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

See, what Gawker did was illegal. A court said so. When people disagree about what is legal, we have courts to adjudicate the matter.

Agreed. However, I was trying to be more inclusive, as only in a few cases courts have decided that Gawker had actually violated the law.

Originally Posted by P 

The morality (and, let's be fair, gloating) aspect came in because, in my view, Gawker has been doing illegal things for a long time and got away with it because their pockets are deeper than those of the wronged. Suddenly they came up against someone with pockets deeper than theirs.

The worry of the journalist starman alluded to (and which I share) is that Thiel's behavior has set a precedence, and that the same strategy will be employed to quash legitimate stories in reputable publications — just because someone with money and determination does not want this story to be published.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The worry of the journalist starman alluded to (and which I share) is that Thiel's behavior has set a precedence, and that the same strategy will be employed to quash legitimate stories in reputable publications — just because someone with money and determination does not want this story to be published.

I have one foot in this camp. In a world where we complain about billionaires running the place, we just saw the case of a billionaire taking down a media giant because they pissed him off. Now, obviously Gawker had to do something monumentally stupid and blatantly illegal for Thiel to jump on them, but who's to say it's always going to be that way?

[P]

Nuisance lawsuits are always a concern, but that is not what happened here. If it starts happening, then worry, but I would like to point out that Thiel waited for years until he had a good case. He did not try to do anything before that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

Nuisance lawsuits are always a concern, but that is not what happened here. If it starts happening, then worry, but I would like to point out that Thiel waited for years until he had a good case.

These are not nuisance lawsuits, these were lawsuits tailored to kill the publication — and not to seek the maximum reward legally possible. Thiel is abusing the spirit of the legal system. I think it is fair to say that we should see whether such a case repeats itself, but at least the [i]concern[/i[ that it could is warranted. In view of what Thiel did to get payback, I wouldn't necessarily take Thiel's assurances at face value.

Originally Posted by P 

He did not try to do anything before that.

No, Thiel admitted to hiring a legal team, and that they backed several previous cases to varying degrees:

Originally Posted by New York Times

He said that he hired a legal team several years ago to look for cases that he could help financially support. “Without going into all the details, we would get in touch with the plaintiffs who otherwise would have accepted a pittance for a settlement, and they were obviously quite happy to have this sort of support,” he said. “In a way very similar to how a plaintiff’s lawyer on contingency would do it.” Mr. Thiel declined to disclose what other cases he had supported but there are at least two current cases against Gawker.

Note that the Times quotes Thiel directly here. Of course, we don't know what cases Thiel's legal team supported over the years, and what kind of support they provided to each of the plaintiffs. But it is obvious that his help wasn't an act of compassion or altruism, he wanted to wait for the case that could kill Gawker.

[starman]

People are worried now that billionaires are going to take down what they don't like. Let's back off a sec and look at what happened.

Thiel took revenge on Gawker, a site which was effing disgusting to begin with. I personally think that there's really nothing to worry about here. This was a perfect storm. Billionaires have been around a long time. Rags have been around a long time. Why hasn't anyone taken out the tabloids? Simple: real people know the stories are bullshit, and it would cost too much to take down a rag. So there's this eternal stalemate.

Except Gawker screwed with the wrong guy. Jennifer Lawrence won't have time time/money/care to take down a rag, but a billionaire can sit back and fund it all and laugh and laugh.

This won't happen again.

What Gawker did WAS illegal. They were told not to post the tape by a judge. They did. They paid. End of story.

[sek929]

I like a couple of the deadspin writers, past that the rest of gawker was throwaway content.

Thiel's a delusional rich weirdo.

[starman]

People think that what Thiel did was wrong or immoral. I don't see it that way because publications got away with crap for too long. It's about time someone knocked one of them out.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

People are trying to make excuses for Gawker's illegal antics, just because they're a part of the media? Where was all your concern for Milo when he was banned from Twitter? He didn't even break the law.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by starman 

People are worried now that billionaires are going to take down what they don't like. Let's back off a sec and look at what happened.

Thiel took revenge on Gawker, a site which was effing disgusting to begin with. I personally think that there's really nothing to worry about here. This was a perfect storm. Billionaires have been around a long time. Rags have been around a long time.

Everyone here is taking a step further back than you are. You're only looking at what happened here. The rest of the conversation has been about the ripples this could cause.

Why hasn't anyone taken out the tabloids? Simple: real people know the stories are bullshit, and it would cost too much to take down a rag. So there's this eternal stalemate.

What if celebrities want the exposure the tabloids provide? What if controversy is good for keeping them in the news and the public eye? What if the billionaires own the tabloids anyway?

What Gawker did WAS illegal. They were told not to post the tape by a judge. They did. They paid. End of story.

As if there's no minutiae to the story. For example. Theil's legal team didn't go for the maximum possible financial punishment or the most severe crime, but the one that would make Nick Denton personally liable.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The worry of the journalist starman alluded to (and which I share) is that Thiel's behavior has set a precedence

That the case involves journalists is irrelevant.
It was framed as a copyright infringement issue which is certainly a realm that applies to journalists. Furthermore Thiel's involvement is legally no different than the Electronic Frontier Foundation's in pretty much every case they back.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

People are trying to make excuses for Gawker's illegal antics, just because they're a part of the media? Where was all your concern for Milo when he was banned from Twitter? He didn't even break the law.

Twitter is a privately owned company. And as such they can restrict or deny access to anyone they please if they feel the user violated their ToS.
You may as well cry about Ca$h not being allowed to post here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

People are trying to make excuses for Gawker's illegal antics, just because they're a part of the media?

That's not what these people are saying, they are not excusing Gawker's behavior.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Where was all your concern for Milo when he was banned from Twitter? He didn't even break the law.

Twitter is entirely different, it's a social platform just like this forum is one. First of all, it's not a free speech issue, Twitter is a private company and users agree to a code of conduct. He broke that code of conduct. I would have banned him for his behavior (≠ for his opinions), too. He was trolling other people and inciting bad behavior. I have some experience with that. If you keep him and others like him around it'll poison the atmosphere and you're losing the members you'd like to keep.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

That the case involves journalists is irrelevant.
It was framed as a copyright infringement issue which is certainly a realm that applies to journalists. Furthermore Thiel's involvement is legally no different than the Electronic Frontier Foundation's in pretty much every case they back.

First of all, officially, Thiel was not a party in any lawsuit against Gawker as far as I am aware. Nor does it make sense to me to frame this case as a “copyright infringement suit”. And I explicitly said that what he did was legal — and should remain legal. Legally speaking, you are right and I agree with you. Nevertheless, organizations like the EFF or ACLU which assist in legal cases have very different objectives than Thiel. Thiel wanted vengeance. He didn't care about copyright infringements or Hogan's sex tape, these were just means to an end. For the EFF and the ACLU that's different.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by starman 

Thiel took revenge on Gawker, a site which was effing disgusting to begin with. I personally think that there's really nothing to worry about here. This was a perfect storm. Billionaires have been around a long time. Rags have been around a long time. Why hasn't anyone taken out the tabloids? Simple: real people know the stories are bullshit, and it would cost too much to take down a rag.

Gawker is no different from other tabloids I know. Newspapers that “forget” to pixelate faces of suspects to heinous acts (pedophilia, rape) who turn out to be innocent, but now they are recognized as “the rapist” or “the pedophile” in their neighborhood because their face was plastered all over the front page. The fact that there was a correction after a 6–12 months on p. 4 in small print, one the newspaper was forced to, doesn't register. And people know tabloids for what they are — and they read them regardless. Gawker isn't that special in the grand scheme of things, it's just that it was a particularly bad, internet-based tabloid.

However, taking the whole publication down is not a legal remedy, in these cases you are only compensated for by money. Nor do I think that we should bake a right into the law where other parties can force a publication to shut down.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Twitter is a privately owned company.

and Terry Bollea is a "privately owned" person, Gawker had no right to the video. Also, Twitter isn't "just a private company" no more than AT&T is. You want to be a lynchpin in public communications? Great, but you have to accept that all speech is important, even the kind you find "problematic". Otherwise, they'd better get to work on all the ToS-violating hate speech thrown around by Black Lives Matter on the platform, that just so happens to get ignored no matter how many times it's reported.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's not what these people are saying, they are not excusing Gawker's behavior.

Of course they are, screaming that they had 1A protections, despite being in direct violation of personal privacy and numerous copyrights.

Twitter is entirely different, it's a social platform just like this forum is one.

Not quite. Since they don't penalize people equally they're leaving themselves open to a huge suit, and I'm looking forward to it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Of course they are, screaming that they had 1A protections, despite being in direct violation of personal privacy and numerous copyrights.

Please, go ahead and read the piece I have linked to (which was in response to Thiel's op ed in the New York Times). Their main concern is that Thiel and other wealthy individuals (rather than courts) can decide what is and isn't legitimate journalism. They are not defending Gawker's behaviour nor are they claiming that Gawker should not have been punished for what it did to Hogan.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Not quite. Since they don't penalize people equally they're leaving themselves open to a huge suit, and I'm looking forward to it.

I can tell you from our experience in dealing with the PL that every time people claimed that the only reason why they were banned was because of their political persuasion when this was simply not the case. We have always had staffers that spanned the whole political spectrum, and forum or PL-specific (temp) bans (whose root cause could often be traced back to the PL) were always discussed first. That didn't stop anyone from claiming that the mod who happened to pull the trigger in the end had it out for them. So Milo's behavior and his claim that “he was targeted for his opinions” sounded pretty familiar.

One thing I will say: so far Twitter has done a horrible job of dealing with bullies, threats and such. Just now they are trying to rectify that (e. g. via automatic filters where users wouldn't actually see threatening messages, especially those by sock puppet accounts). And if you don't know how Twitter works in detail, you also don't understand why they tried to ameliorate the situation by removing Milo's status as a verified user. No, it's not to punish you, it's that verified people's messages are displayed more prominently and not filtered out by default if you send a response to or at mention another verified user.

At the end of the day, though, I think it was right to ban Milo.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think it was right to ban Milo.

Of course you do, because you disagree w/ his ideology. What specifically did he do to deserve being banned? Saying she looks like a man? (Well, she does look rather masculine.) Mistakenly posting a doctored photo? Face it, some can break the Twitter TOS at will while others can't. At no point did he "target her for abuse", unlike active BLM supporters who still have their Twitter accounts, doxxing and threatening anyone they disagree with.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Of course you do, because you disagree w/ his ideology.

No, that's not the case, you're jumping to conclusions. But I think I have covered that pretty well in my previous post.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What specifically did he do to deserve being banned? Saying she looks like a man? (Well, she does look rather masculine.) Mistakenly posting a doctored photo?

He at mentioned her and funneled his supporters towards her account. And he gets off on provoking people. That's trolling. If he had made the same posts without mentioning her by user name or hashtag, I wouldn't have had a problem with his posts.

We have dealt with people like him here at MacNN, although what happens here is of course on a much, much, much smaller scale than what happens at Twitter. But even at this small scale, people like him poison the well of the community. My job here at MacNN is to protect the community from trolls, so I can perfectly understand Twitter's decision to ban him. Even his whining afterwards is exactly the same as some of our past members here — it's just that they didn't get to do that on TV.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Face it, some can break the Twitter TOS at will while others can't. At no point did he "target her for abuse", unlike active BLM supporters who still have their Twitter accounts, doxxing and threatening anyone they disagree with.

I conceded that Twitter does not have a stellar record of enforcing any type of abuse protection, they are just starting to. I'm not running Twitter, though, so I am not responsible for their inaction. The rules should apply to everyone, so if BLM supporters doxx someone, they should be banned from Twitter and prosecuted. If people funnel hate storms to other users, they should be banned and, in case it is warranted, also prosecuted. However, two wrongs don't make a right, and it is a non sequitur to claim that not prosecuting someone else should you immune from it as well.

Abuse is not to be tolerated, and things like stalking or doxxing are not protected under the First Amendment.

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

These are not nuisance lawsuits, these were lawsuits tailored to kill the publication — and not to seek the maximum reward legally possible. Thiel is abusing the spirit of the legal system.

I thnk that this is our fundamental disagreement here. What you are describing is that Gawker should be allowed to print what they want and then pay for it - in effect, a forced license, if we're talking copyright terms for a second. I don't agree that that is the spirit of the legal system here. I would argue that the spirit of the legal system is that such publications should be prevented, and a punitive cash fee is the way to ensure that.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, Thiel admitted to hiring a legal team, and that they backed several previous cases to varying degrees:

Note that the Times quotes Thiel directly here. Of course, we don't know what cases Thiel's legal team supported over the years, and what kind of support they provided to each of the plaintiffs. But it is obvious that his help wasn't an act of compassion or altruism, he wanted to wait for the case that could kill Gawker.

No matter the motivations (and you're probably right, he wanted to stop Gawker from publishing these sort of things, killing them if that was the way to achieve that), he didn't actually cost Gawker any money until he a very clear case.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

I thnk that this is our fundamental disagreement here. What you are describing is that Gawker should be allowed to print what they want and then pay for it - in effect, a forced license, if we're talking copyright terms for a second.

No, that's definitely not what I meant to write or imply. Again, I don't care about Gawker. At all. My concern is that these tactics could be used to prevent legitimate stories from being printed. If you are a publication and Thiel tells you that he will sue your publication out of existence, would you take his threat seriously? Would you still publish the story? What if companies with their own legal departments decided to adopt these tactics?

Originally Posted by P 

I don't agree that that is the spirit of the legal system here. I would argue that the spirit of the legal system is that such publications should be prevented, and a punitive cash fee is the way to ensure that.

Let's separate two things, (1) what the law is and (2) what the law should be. Point (1) seems pretty unambiguous: killing the company is not a legal remedy here. AFAIK (and I'm not a lawyer) the only thing you can ask for are damages (which in your parlance would be “forced license fees”). Even if you can show wrongdoing I don't think you can force a publication to shut down — unless they default because of said lawsuit. I am not sure whether you can file criminal charges against individuals working for the company and what you could sue them for, but at least in Gawker's case that doesn't seem to have happened. Am I missing something here?

Your argument seems to concern mainly the second point, namely what the law should be. You seem to think it is unfair and immoral that the only thing Hogan could ask for were punitive damages. That's of course an interesting topic of discussion: You want to change what legal remedies are in the toolbox. Personally, I'm very open to the idea of a “corporate criminal law” that would impose and more varied and potentially much harsher penalties. Since you cannot imprison companies, the only punishments I can come up with here are some form of punitive damages, disbandment or forced sale of the company in full or in part, or loss of certain privileges (e. g. to sell goods which require special licensing or permits). You could also add something like a “Three Strikes” rule and probation to the mix. I am unsure whether it makes sense to add more severe punishments in this particular case, though. Destruction of the company is akin to life without parole, and that seems too severe, at least not right away.

But even if you made all these changes, and the Hogan vs. Gawker case were decided under our P-Oreo Law, I still don't quite see how this pertains to my main criticism: Hogan sought damages (which he deserved), not Thiel. Thiel was, legally speaking, not a party to the case, and that aspect seems to have gotten lost in the discussion. So even if I think Gawker should have been severely punished for publishing a sex video without consent, does Gawker deserve the same severe punishment for outing Thiel? I personally don't. However, at least as I see the situation, this is what happened.

Originally Posted by P 

No matter the motivations (and you're probably right, he wanted to stop Gawker from publishing these sort of things, killing them if that was the way to achieve that), he didn't actually cost Gawker any money until he a very clear case.

How do we know that he didn't cost Gawker any money before that? Perhaps you're right, but he refused to disclose the cases Gawker in which his legal team was involved as well as the extent of the assistance. We also don't know the agreement between Thiel and Hogan. However, I concede that Hogan's case was the first case when it was about really serious amounts of money.

I'm curious: does anyone know how much money Hogan will actually get out of it? Gawker went belly up and I am not sure whether Hogan was at the front or in the back of the line when they start distributing the pieces. In case he doesn't get nowhere near the $110 million, is Hogan getting some money from Thiel instead?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, that's not the case, you're jumping to conclusions. But I think I have covered that pretty well in my previous post.

No you didn't.

He at mentioned her and funneled his supporters towards her account. And he gets off on provoking people. That's trolling. If he had made the same posts without mentioning her by user name or hashtag, I wouldn't have had a problem with his posts.

None of that amounts to "targeting her for abuse". He's not responsible for what his followers choose to do and he never told anyone to attack her. So what if he's "trolling"? That's actually not against the TOS. Otherwise, Hillary's account just incited violence against nearly everyone on the Alt Right just a few days ago and should be banned immediately. We both know that won't happen though, don't we?

We have dealt with people like him here at MacNN, although what happens here is of course on a much, much, much smaller scale than what happens at Twitter. But even at this small scale, people like him poison the well of the community. My job here at MacNN is to protect the community from trolls, so I can perfectly understand Twitter's decision to ban him. Even his whining afterwards is exactly the same as some of our past members here — it's just that they didn't get to do that on TV.

MacNN isn't a public media outlet, it's a private discussion area. The rules and laws pertaining to free speech aren't the same between the two.

I conceded that Twitter does not have a stellar record of enforcing any type of abuse protection, they are just starting to. I'm not running Twitter, though, so I am not responsible for their inaction. The rules should apply to everyone, so if BLM supporters doxx someone, they should be banned from Twitter and prosecuted. If people funnel hate storms to other users, they should be banned and, in case it is warranted, also prosecuted. However, two wrongs don't make a right, and it is a non sequitur to claim that not prosecuting someone else should you immune from it as well.

We both know that's not how it works, no one from BLM will get banned simply for breaking TOS, they're a protected group on social media.

Abuse is not to be tolerated, and things like stalking or doxxing are not protected under the First Amendment.

Milo didn't do that, in fact, he'd only been talking w/ Jones for short while (~2 days) before the ban came down and he certainly didn't doxx her. Twitter was just using it as an excuse to remove someone they're at ideological odds with, and that's not only unethical, it's illegal.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

MacNN isn't a public media outlet, it's a private discussion area. The rules and laws pertaining to free speech aren't the same between the two.

What? Which government owns Twitter?

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, that's definitely not what I meant to write or imply. Again, I don't care about Gawker. At all. My concern is that these tactics could be used to prevent legitimate stories from being printed. If you are a publication and Thiel tells you that he will sue your publication out of existence, would you take his threat seriously? Would you still publish the story? What if companies with their own legal departments decided to adopt these tactics?

As in, the story that outed Thiel all those years ago was legal? OK, I see that point, but pissing of someone with deep pockets is not sufficient - you also need to do something illegal later that he can pounce on.

If what Gawker had done had been borderline, than perhaps this judgement would cause some sort of chilling effect, but it wasn't borderline. It was straight-up illegal, they knew it, and they figured that it was worth it. This last is what I hate.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Let's separate two things, (1) what the law is and (2) what the law should be. Point (1) seems pretty unambiguous: killing the company is not a legal remedy here. AFAIK (and I'm not a lawyer) the only thing you can ask for are damages (which in your parlance would be “forced license fees”). Even if you can show wrongdoing I don't think you can force a publication to shut down — unless they default because of said lawsuit. I am not sure whether you can file criminal charges against individuals working for the company and what you could sue them for, but at least in Gawker's case that doesn't seem to have happened. Am I missing something here?

There are two different sorts of damages - compensatory damages and punitive damages. Compensatory are replacement for lost earnings - punitive are meant as punishment, and as a deterrent. Punitive damages aren't used in most legal systems, but they are a permanent feature of the US legal system - and really, they will kill a company if you pile them on high enough.

Punitive damages are always up to the judge and jury, though, and they can call it pretty freely. The reason that this was the "perfect" case for Thiel was that the compensatory damages were so large - Bollea lost income, and Gawker had to replace that. Bollea also got some punitive damages, but that was actually the smaller part of the judgement.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Your argument seems to concern mainly the second point, namely what the law should be. You seem to think it is unfair and immoral that the only thing Hogan could ask for were punitive damages. That's of course an interesting topic of discussion: You want to change what legal remedies are in the toolbox. Personally, I'm very open to the idea of a “corporate criminal law” that would impose and more varied and potentially much harsher penalties. Since you cannot imprison companies, the only punishments I can come up with here are some form of punitive damages, disbandment or forced sale of the company in full or in part, or loss of certain privileges (e. g. to sell goods which require special licensing or permits). You could also add something like a “Three Strikes” rule and probation to the mix. I am unsure whether it makes sense to add more severe punishments in this particular case, though. Destruction of the company is akin to life without parole, and that seems too severe, at least not right away.

But even if you made all these changes, and the Hogan vs. Gawker case were decided under our P-Oreo Law, I still don't quite see how this pertains to my main criticism: Hogan sought damages (which he deserved), not Thiel. Thiel was, legally speaking, not a party to the case, and that aspect seems to have gotten lost in the discussion. So even if I think Gawker should have been severely punished for publishing a sex video without consent, does Gawker deserve the same severe punishment for outing Thiel? I personally don't. However, at least as I see the situation, this is what happened.

My view is this: Bollea is entitled to the compensatory damages - he lost income, he should get that money - but I don't see why he should get punitive damages. AFAIC, they could put the money in a big pile and burn it, give it to a charity, give it to the state even. The point is that Gawker should lose that money, not that someone specifically should get it.

Gawker has wronged many people for whom it should pay out punitive damages. In theory this would be your three strikes law - if you keep flouting the law, you will get ruined. The problem with the system is that justice is expensive. Those cases never get to court, because Gawker has deeper pockets. That is what I think is unfair, not the law per se.

So all we need is someone to pay for the justice, and this is where Thiel sees himself. A little bit of a savior complex, but hey. In his view, he is providing the missing piece to make the current system work. I don't particularly like the system, but I can't say that Thiel made it worse, made it further from the framer's intent.

So Thiel's motives aren't great, I get that, but he can't just kill a company by willing it. A court does that. The company still has to do something illegal. That a hundred other companies get away with doing the same thing is the bad thing, not the one that had to pay up.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm curious: does anyone know how much money Hogan will actually get out of it? Gawker went belly up and I am not sure whether Hogan was at the front or in the back of the line when they start distributing the pieces. In case he doesn't get nowhere near the $110 million, is Hogan getting some money from Thiel instead?

The assets of Gawker media, the parent company, sold to Univision for $135 million. Univision's first action was shuttering Gawker.com. That $135 million is supposed to cover Bollea's money, lawyers, loans and probably a few other things before Denton and his partners get the rest. I don't know how many other creditors there are. Who goes first is up to the bankruptcy judge.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

None of that amounts to "targeting her for abuse". He's not responsible for what his followers choose to do and he never told anyone to attack her. So what if he's "trolling"? That's actually not against the TOS.

Then we are just of different opinions here.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Otherwise, Hillary's account just incited violence against nearly everyone on the Alt Right just a few days ago and should be banned immediately. We both know that won't happen though, don't we?

Donald Trump's account isn't banned either — despite that Twitter is probably his most important campaign platform. And yes, of course, I'm completely ok with him being on Twitter. Milo targeted individuals, Trump targets the masses. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

MacNN isn't a public media outlet, it's a private discussion area. The rules and laws pertaining to free speech aren't the same between the two.

No, both are the same, they are privately owned social platforms. That Twitter's reach is much, much larger than MacNN doesn't make a difference here. The platform owner determines the rules of conduct, and may adapt them as times and circumstances change. It is in their interest to protect their community (which is their business!) from abuse, because then people remain on Twitter. If abuse spreads, people leave — which is bad for business.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Milo didn't do that, in fact, he'd only been talking w/ Jones for short while (~2 days) before the ban came down and he certainly didn't doxx her. Twitter was just using it as an excuse to remove someone they're at ideological odds with, and that's not only unethical, it's illegal.

This wasn't Milo's first Tango with Twitter, and you shouldn't see this latest incidence in isolation. Milo wasn't banned for his political opinions, Trump after all is still on Twitter. You're jumping to conclusions because of your own ideology, you make a connection between things that are not connected. Why should Twitter ban conservatives? Even just from a business standpoint that makes no sense whatsoever. Banning trolls, though, does.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

As in, the story that outed Thiel all those years ago was legal? OK, I see that point, but pissing of someone with deep pockets is not sufficient - you also need to do something illegal later that he can pounce on.

Well, yes, but then you are connecting two things that aren't connected. Thiel engaged in a fight by proxy, and he wasn't fighting in the best interest of the people he secretly supported in their lawsuits, he fought them to suit his own agenda, to satisfy his own grudge. To Thiel, Hogan is just a pawn in the game, a mean to an end.

To be clear: if he had been out in the open, supporting all significant Gawker lawsuits not just with his money, legal team but also the publicity, and clearly fighting for the victims' best interests, my opinion of him and what he has done would be very different. Thiel threatened to shut Gawker down for outing him, and that he did. And because the punishment doesn't fit the crime, this doesn't sit right with me.

Originally Posted by P 

So all we need is someone to pay for the justice, and this is where Thiel sees himself. A little bit of a savior complex, but hey. In his view, he is providing the missing piece to make the current system work. I don't particularly like the system, but I can't say that Thiel made it worse, made it further from the framer's intent.

I don't see any “savior complex” manifesting itself in Thiel's actions, just selfishness. Perhaps we are a bit unfair (one way or the other) in ascribing motivations to his actions without knowing Thiel personally, but just looking at what happened I have a hard time seeing Thiel in this light.

Originally Posted by P 

So Thiel's motives aren't great, I get that, but he can't just kill a company by willing it. A court does that. The company still has to do something illegal. That a hundred other companies get away with doing the same thing is the bad thing, not the one that had to pay up.

The circumstances here are quite special. One of the reasons is that under normal circumstances big companies aren't sued for that much by individuals, and the fact that they have insurance policies covering that. (Thiel had Hogan drop charges specifically so that Gawker's insurance wouldn't be applicable to the lawsuit.) I have never heard of a triple digit judgement for publishing a sex tape before.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Nor does it make sense to me to frame this case as a “copyright infringement suit”.

I cited the incorrect branch of property law. It's "right of publicity" not copyright.

Though I'll note the things I confused are kinda in the same ballpark.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Then we are just of different opinions here.

Opinions are for hair styles, not verifiable circumstances.

Donald Trump's account isn't banned either — despite that Twitter is probably his most important campaign platform. And yes, of course, I'm completely ok with him being on Twitter. Milo targeted individuals, Trump targets the masses. Big difference.

AFAIK Trump's not targeted anyone for career/personal destruction, unlike Hillary saying she's going to destroy the Alt-Right media and the careers of specific journalists.

No, both are the same, they are privately owned social platforms. That Twitter's reach is much, much larger than MacNN doesn't make a difference here. The platform owner determines the rules of conduct, and may adapt them as times and circumstances change. It is in their interest to protect their community (which is their business!) from abuse, because then people remain on Twitter. If abuse spreads, people leave — which is bad for business.

No they aren't, MacNN isn't a unique resource for modern communication by the media, unlike Twitter. What's "bad for business" is unbalanced treatment based on ideological positions. You want to force Evangelical bakers to make cakes for gay weddings? Fine. Now you have to accept that companies can't just refuse service to others simply because they have different values and political views. Criticism isn't abuse and the world isn't one big Safe Space. No one is (nor ever should be) guaranteed protection from being offended.

This wasn't Milo's first Tango with Twitter, and you shouldn't see this latest incidence in isolation. Milo wasn't banned for his political opinions, Trump after all is still on Twitter. You're jumping to conclusions because of your own ideology, you make a connection between things that are not connected. Why should Twitter ban conservatives? Even just from a business standpoint that makes no sense whatsoever. Banning trolls, though, does.

I'm still trying to find where he ever "targeted someone for harassment", probably because it never happened. Why would Twitter ban political opposition? To silence a member of the opposing group, of course, because they have a very clear political agenda. Let's take a look at their "Trust and Safety Council" (almost all of whom are direct DNC supporters), the people who decide who's breaking the rules and who isn't.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

What? Which government owns Twitter?

Which gov't owns AT&T?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You want to force Evangelical bakers to make cakes for gay weddings? Fine.

You're jumping to conclusions on what my positions are and aren't, and extrapolate from there. Please don't do that, you don't know what I think about Evangelical bakeries and gay wedding cakes.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Now you have to accept that companies can't just refuse service to others simply because they have different values and political views. Criticism isn't abuse and the world isn't one big Safe Space. No one is (nor ever should be) guaranteed protection from being offended.

Twitter isn't doing banning speech it doesn't approve of or create virtual safe spaces. Otherwise instead of banning small-fry Milo it'd have banned Trump.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Why would Twitter ban political opposition? To silence a member of the opposing group, of course, because they have a very clear political agenda. Let's take a look at their "Trust and Safety Council" (almost all of whom are direct DNC supporters), the people who decide who's breaking the rules and who isn't.

You are ascribing political opinions to a company, and think that the company would act against its economic interests to further its political agenda. It's not in Twitter's interest to stifle discussion. It is in their interest to protect its users against abuse.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You're jumping to conclusions on what my positions are and aren't, and extrapolate from there. Please don't do that, you don't know what I think about Evangelical bakeries and gay wedding cakes.

I doubt it, but go ahead, should people be required by law to provide services equally?

Twitter isn't doing banning speech it doesn't approve of or create virtual safe spaces. Otherwise instead of banning small-fry Milo it'd have banned Trump.

They CAN'T ban Trump, their shareholders would lose their minds over the mass exodus it would cause. That's not the case with "small-fry Milo" (though it did drop 10% immediately after). Wait? You're saying they aren't trying to create a Safe Space? With a name like the "Trust and Safety Council" (comprised of Safe Space advocates), really?

You are ascribing political opinions to a company, and think that the company would act against its economic interests to further its political agenda.

Sure they would. Again, look at the T&S Council, full of businesses that do just that.

It's not in Twitter's interest to stifle discussion. It is in their interest to protect its users against abuse.

Companies are made of people and oftentimes it's in individuals' personal interest to limit the speech, and political opinions, of people they don't like. Absolutely they'd ban Trump (and even all of Breitbart), if they could, but the blowback would be more than they could handle, given the beating their stock has already taken (mostly over other questionable policy decisions and ham-fisted bans).

There's some moxie over there, for sure, they spend any newfound goodwill from their shareholders as soon as they get it, despite barely hanging on by their fingernails. CEO Jack Dorsey may not have much in the way of brains, but he does have a pair of balls on him.