Literally not a single outlet in the US would post an image of dead Yemeni children, because that would disrupt the image of America as a benevolent empire. The vast majority of Americans have no idea about the crisis in Yemen and the media helps keep it that way.
20 Likes
Not to get too far off-topic, but my understanding is that the Clems (AKA Heather Clem and her husband Bubba the Love Sponge 
) conspired to video Terry Gene Bolleaâs (AKA Hulk Hoganâs) sleazy indiscretion with the intention of having, to use the term in vogue, kompromat. Then Gawker got ahold of the video and published it. Secretly videoing someone during sex is a form of sexual assault in my book, but I guess the Clems had less money to go after and of course Theil wanted revenge against Gawker so that was the lawsuit he was willing to fund. Publishing that material is skeevy, though arguably protected under the first amendment. The Court ruled that publishing it was an invasion of privacy, which from a purely legal standpoint I can see since Hogan was only a marginal public figure and the video was made by surreptitious means without significant public information value.
But, as you point out, the damages were grossly disproportionate. Instead of discouraging publishing ill-obtained private sex-tapes, it wiped out an entire journalistic outlet (crappy journalism though it often published).
7 Likes
Â
5 Likes
Yup. Donât get me wrong - Gawker deserved to get sued, and deserved to have to pay out a chunk of money in punitive damages. Get put out of business? Not so much.
5 Likes
This could break the Enquirerâs deal with the SDNY prosecutors. That would lead to a severe rat-farking
3 Likes
Please re-read my comment, I was not speaking about this article. I was using this article as a reason the weeky recap of AMI publications, that usually takes up the whole page of the /blog view, should be discontinued.
They should have never started, this AMI malfeasance that harms individuals and literally the entire country of the US has been known for a while now. Hopefully this gross, clear example of trying to suppress actual news and blackmail someone might be enough to wake the Publisher here up.
AMI is not all âha ha Bat Boyâ
1 Like
11 Likes
Of course. The only media outlet that had images about the event was RT. And everybody in the US knows that it is just a Russian propaganda rag, serving the deception of the American people - repeatedly telling them that their Disneyland world is not what goes for reality.
Although, I personally dubbed RT âRegurgitating Twitterâ, because 90% of their offerings originate from Twatter.
2 Likes
Youâre not starting to get disappointed are you?
2 Likes
4 Likes
Hang on, wasnât Mr Pecker the dickhead in Ghostbusters, too?
2 Likes
Outlets in the middle east (outside of control of the Saudis) also regularly have images such as that, because, you know, itâs happening in their backyard. Not in the US, because we donât care that our tax dollars are slaughtering people.
9 Likes
The dumbest part was putting it in writing. Even Trump knows to try and eliminate the paper trail.
It is also amusing that the mouthbreathers at the National Enquirer decided to go after the publisher of The Washington Post . The WPâs star has fallen since the glory days, but they are the guys that published The Pentagon Papers and were central in investigating the Watergate scandal. Itâs like some high schooler trying to bat in the major leagues. It is not going to be pretty.
8 Likes
Nah, heâs just hungry.
3 Likes
Again, as Factsheet Five once summarized it: âKill the poor, not the unbornâ
4 Likes
Incidentally, who actually buys and/or reads the Enquirer? While I myself used to purchase Weekly World News (which used to have the same publisher as the Enquirer) mainly as source material for montages, I have never, once, seen someone purchase the Enquirer while I was in the grocery line. Have I led that much of a sheltered life that Iâve never seen this in thirty or forty years of making purchases in a checkout line? I canât even specifically recall anyone thumbing through one. But presumably someone out there has been buying enough issues to keep the thing afloat; the question is âwho?â
Enquiring minds want to know!
Also: âNo thank you, Mr. Peckerâ sounds like the title of a sex hygiene film from the '50s, about the dangers of V.D.
And:
3 Likes
9 Likes
Hey, now, they did label it " CONFIDENTIAL & NOT FOR DISTRIBIUTION [sic]". Thatâs like those âThis email is only intended for the recipientâŚâ disclaimers that people put at the bottom of their emails â you just donât ignore that, man! Is nothing sacred?
(OTOH maybe misspelling âdistributionâ makes it null and void)
7 Likes
Ive never seen anyone buy or look through it either.
Starting to wonder if its not just fully funded to print, paid position, and to be thrown away every week, as a nation permanent smear campaign against anyone the owner doesnt like.
Iâm disappointed in general with much of the human race, but especially with the worthless fucksticks that publish tabloid drivel.
4 Likes
