Why, did Chuck Tingle win?
9 Likes
3 Likes
14 Likes
Oh, the whole arbitrary down-voting thing, just because they are haters?
That ploy failed?
Good.
9 Likes
Not this year, but there has been talk of nominating Tingle next year for “Best Related Work” for his books about the Hugos. So it could still happen.
10 Likes
yeah, I wondered about all the citations of the 1st Amendment. It has NO relevence here at all, the government was not involved in abridging anyone’s speech.
The US tendency to insane civil action awards is, however, an issue.
5 Likes
Thank god it’s safe to still believe in love.
6 Likes
You make a great point, but who did Gawker rape? I hadn’t heard that angle in the case.
2 Likes
No doubt, Daulerio can be a total dick, but the punishment doesn’t fit the non-crime here.
3 Likes
It’s an analogy that even a single serious misjudgment can have a catastrophic consequence. That it is, it is in fact fair to be held responsible for things we intentionally do, even if some people really like us and think we should get a pass because of reasons which don’t change the fact we did what we did. I’m glad you brought up that Gawker Media did post a video of a young woman being raped while intoxicated and told her that “actions have consequences” when she begged them to take it down, saying it would ruin her life. The jury award was in part, it seems, based on the jury’s outrage at Gawker’s pattern of total disregard for the privacy of individuals which had no legitimate newsworthy component and serious harm to the individuals concerned. So Gawker was right about that one, just not in the way they expected. Good point.
5 Likes
The slippery slope arguments are likely bupkis. I still would prefer the suit had been against the specific writers and editors.
5 Likes
Nous ne sommes pas Charlie.
1 Like
I didn’t bring that up. @Phrenological did.
I won’t defend that incident because it was wrong, but that’s irrelevant here. If Gawker should be held liable for that incident, then they should be sued over it. But Gawker has not committed rape, nor it’s employees (that I know of, and not in relation to this case), so your analogy misses the mark as far as the severity of consequences.
Posting excerpts and descriptions of a sex video (with the likely permission of the person who filmed it and leaked it and with the likely knowledge of those on tape that they were being taped) leading to bankruptcy is the equivalent of ogling a woman and getting charged with rape and made to register as a sex offender. The disparity between the act and the consequence is significant.
So yes. A college athletic star who commits rape (a severe act) should reap a severe consequence. This isn’t an analogous scenario. And if Gawker is to be punished for other deeds, whether it’s the possible rape video or Peter Thiel’s outing, then those should be the subject of lawsuits, not this.
2 Likes
If there’s one place where you should take questions seriously, it’s when making a deposition. If he was too stupid to understand that he was under oath & what he said was court testimony, that’s beyond stupid.
2 Likes
Instead of directing these questions at just-plain folks, you should be asking them of the jury and judge. You know the award will be substantially reduced. As for penalizing Gawker in the interim, it was found guilty. That’s how guilty parties – corporate or human — are treated by the courts.
2 Likes
Certain gay activists in the 1980s outed famous people, on the grounds that public figures staying in the closet did widespread harm to the cause of social acceptance and gay self-esteem, and by extension to all members of the gay community — far more harm than whatever embarrassment would be suffered by the subject. Whether you buy that justification or not, do you really consider that “hate speech?”
1 Like
Very good points!
I’d only add: Courts don’t waive convictions because a family breadwinner has to go to jail
Those papers published stories that Melania Trump had worked as an escort. If untrue, I don’t blame her for suing them one bit (and I detest her husband).
People laud lawsuits brought by advocacy groups — funded by rich people like Thiel. Where is the difference? And Thiel’s involvement was exonerated by the fact that the court agreed with him.
1 Like
They did? You mean, Gawker tricked Hogan into having sex with Gawker’s wife on tape, and then shopped the tape around town looking for buyers? And then Gawker went to Hogan’s sponsors and said “NO MORE HULKSTER CONTRACT OR WE CUT YOU!!!” ? Is that how it went down?
5 Likes
Taken to court, yes. Fined into bankruptcy, hell no. And that’s the problem. We’ve reached a situation in our legal system where the best legal team is a financial weapon that can be used to take down entire news empires instead of the individuals within responsible. It’s not about justice, it’s about how much justice can you afford, and therefore a tool of the investor class.
10 Likes
Gawker’s decision to post the rape video is not irrelevant, since the jury considered all of the evidence presented. Certainly they will consider a pattern of evil behavior differently than one good-faith error of judgment. The analogy though is not just whether an error in judgment should ruin your own life; it’s whether it can ruin someone else’s. Being humiliated on the internet has significant consequences for some people. Some lose their jobs and their families. Certainly it may bankrupt someone if they can’t get employment. It’s irrefutable that is has emotional but also economic consequences. All the court decides is who bears the loss which is a consequence of Gawker’s decision to post something they should not. In this case it is Gawker. As to the size of the award … if you burn someone’s house down, yes a famous house is going to cost you more than a non-famous house. I can’t say what the right number is, but it seems pretty straightforward that Gawker is liable for the damages caused by what Gawker did. We live in a country where people routinely go bankrupt because of medical debt they have zero control over, so I find the hand-wringing over a business going under for bad decisions to be silly. .
5 Likes
