Gawker Settles With Hulk Hogan For $31M

Tweak42 said:
Oh I'm not disputing that Gawker was most definitely guilty. And Thiel was perfectly in his right to use his money. However by hiding the money source, it just sets a precedence that if you have enough money you can fight a proxy war with someone you don't like and keep your hands clean. It's used in business and politics where it's frowned upon (and some cases illegal), so I don't see why we should encourage it here. In this case though Gawker deserved to get stepped on, it's future cases I'm concerned where a defendant may actually have something important to protect not get swept under the rug or buried by gag orders.
Click to expand...
Outsiders financially back civil court cases for whatever reason all the time. It's not like this is setting some kind of new precedent in civil cases in the US.
 
this should be the goal of all celebs. Make sex tape, get hacked, profit.
fuuuuuuuck. i hate my poor life
#pauperazzi
 
maverikv said:
Just because you didn't like gawker didn't mean they deserved this BS
Click to expand...

Except it isn't BS and Gawker did deserve it. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can set my opinion of people or a company aside when looking at stuff like this. Gawker fucked up big time and were rightfully sued and rightfully lost the case. They have a history of publishing hit pieces and hit pieces are NOT protected under free speech.
 
They are if they are newsworthy q

Derangel said:
Except it isn't BS and Gawker did deserve it. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can set my opinion of people or a company aside when looking at stuff like this. Gawker fucked up big time and were rightfully sued and rightfully lost the case. They have a history of publishing hit pieces and hit pieces are NOT protected under free speech.
Click to expand...
 
maverikv said:
They are if they are newsworthy q
Click to expand...

IF it's newsworthy. No one has yet to explain how it's newsworthy. Hogan's a douchebag. This has been widely known for over 15 years. Fucking the wife of his friend is horrible, but it isn't illegal. A hit piece based on that does not serve the public, it is not newsworthy. Hogan's statements from the second tape are easier to ague in favor of being newsworthy, to a point. Though that one statement on it's own should not actually be enough to judge him. If the media wasn't so fucked beyond belief right now due to the SJW bullshit maybe it wouldn't have turned into this complete shit storm. It's rather amusing that Gawker's entire hit piece was aimed specifically at Hogan and they continued to attack Hogan, completely ignoring that it takes two people (at least) to have sex and both parties are equally in the wrong. Funny how their obvious bias ignores that other party because they're not a white male, ain't it?

Going along that line: Please explain to me how out Thiel served the public interest? Or how about the bullshit they pulled with the Conde Nast CFO?
 
maverikv said:
"serving the public" is not the criteria for newsworthiness.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Serving the public interest is the entire purpose of the media and is something that ALL journalists are supposed to take into account before reporting on anything. This goes along with UNBIASED reporting. Gawker did neither. Gawker failed to prove that the article was newsworthy or that it served the public interest. When an article meets neither it's trash. When the sole intent is to harm, not report, it's not longer a news story. If you want the protection of the freedom of the press, act like a fucking journalist in the first place.
 
They failed to prove it to that jury and then were outmaneuvered in a way to prevent an appeal they would surely win. Hulk Hogan made his sex life a part of his public persona, so the sex tape is very legitimately arguable to be newsworthy because it pertains to the public persona of a public figure.
 
maverikv said:
They failed to prove it to that jury and then were outmaneuvered in a way to prevent an appeal they would surely win. Hulk Hogan made his sex life a part of his public persona, so the sex tape is very legitimately arguable to be newsworthy because it pertains to the public persona of a public figure.
Click to expand...

If Gawker hadn't acted like gigantic assholes that thought they were above the law and instead presented their case more rationally and provided more evidence and clear arguement, maybe they would have won. On the other hand if they didn't act that way in the first place the entire article probably wouldn't have been posted, or at least not in the way it was. They might also have taken the damn article down while they fought the initial injunction. This also never would have been a problem because a Gawker that didn't think it was above the law and above any kind of journalistic ethics wouldn't even have gotten into that situation in the first place.
 
Armenius said:
LBGT magazine "The Advocate" went so far as to publish an article stating that Thiel isn't gay because he supports Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
I had to look that up to see what the context was. That statement in the article is not because of his support of Trump, but Thiel's support of policies that are anti-gay. Specifically, his support of the republican party platform and Mike Pence's backwards ideology. This part highlights the problem:

Thiel also endorsed a political platform and party that includes the vice-presidential nominee who has voted against hate-crime laws, opposed HIV funding, and supported a law allowing businesses to deny services to people who identify as gay.

In this way, Thiel reaffirmed his own sexual choices — while separating himself from gay identity.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly care about gay identity politics (small p politics), but the article is a fairly good argument to support those claims. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/...-us-theres-difference-between-gay-sex-and-gay

tl;dr Thiel likes the man meat, but not everything else that comes with being gay.
 
pxc said:
I had to look that up to see what the context was. That statement in the article is not because of his support of Trump, but Thiel's support of policies that are anti-gay. Specifically, his support of the republican party platform and Mike Pence's backwards ideology. This part highlights the problem:



I don't particularly care about gay identity politics (small p politics), but the article is a fairly good argument to support those claims. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/...-us-theres-difference-between-gay-sex-and-gay

tl;dr Thiel likes the man meat, but not everything else that comes with being gay.
Click to expand...

You go down that slippery slope, and then I can find something about every single segment/group/identity you identify as/with that you don't agree with and/or adhere to, and proclaim you then aren't really 'x' either. And not just for you, for anyone and in regard to any identity qualifier.
 
staknhalo said:
You go down that slippery slope, and then I can find something about every single segment/group/identity you identify as/with that you don't agree with and/or adhere to, and proclaim you then aren't really 'x' either. And not just for you, for anyone and in regard to any identity qualifier.
Click to expand...
It's not a slippery slope. This isn't just a personal opinion difference, or some small disagreement, it's wide reaching and affects basic civil rights at many levels.

Since it's apparent you didn't read the article, what's the point of criticizing it? Yay, willful ignorance!
 
pxc said:
It's not a slippery slope. This isn't just a personal opinion difference, or some small disagreement, it's wide reaching and affects basic civil rights at many levels.

Since it's apparent you didn't read the article, what's the point of criticizing it? Yay, willful ignorance!
Click to expand...

I did read the article, weeks ago when it came out. My response still stands.

What you're arguing and that article is trying to make the case for is equal to saying any black person who doesn't support BLM isn't really black.

Both that, and the 'Thiel isn't really gay' argument are slippery slopes.

Way to jump to reactionary conclusions :whistle:
 
staknhalo said:
I did read the article, weeks ago when it came out. My response still stands.
Click to expand...
Again, because it's crystal clear you didn't read the article, the author makes the distinction between someone who has sex with men and someone who has a gay identity. It's reinforced throughout the article, so it's not a minor point to miss. I responded to another poster because the context was completely stripped out and felt it needed to be understood in order to pretend to be outraged by it.

BTW, since you don't seem to understand what a slippery slope fallacy is either, here's a good explanation: http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Slippery-Slope.html
 
pxc said:
Again, because it's crystal clear you didn't read the article, the author makes the distinction between someone who has sex with men and someone who has a gay identity. It's reinforced throughout the article, so it's not a minor point to miss.

BTW, since you don't seem to understand what a slippery slope fallacy is either, here's a good explanation: http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Slippery-Slope.html
Click to expand...

"Because he does not embrace the struggle of people to embrace their distinctive identity." That's from the article. That seems like a nice parallel to my example of "Any black person who doesn't support BLM isn't really black".

And in regard to you arguing it's not a slippery slope - "The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

So the argument of if 'X' doesn't support 'Y', then they are not 'Z'; and the fact that argument can be attributed to literally anyone in regard to literally any identity = slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
maverikv said:
They proved it to the jury from the previous case that was appealed.
Click to expand...

And they didn't prove it to that jury upon appeal, so according to the law then the final ruling on the books is.......................... not newsworthy.
 
staknhalo said:
And they didn't prove it to that jury upon appeal, so according to the law then the final ruling on the books is.......................... not newsworthy.
Click to expand...

Right. My problem isn't with that jury (though I disagree with them), my problem is in the way gawker was basically stomped out in a way to prevent further operations and another appeal.
 
maverikv said:
Right. My problem isn't with that jury (though I disagree with them), my problem is in the way gawker was basically stomped out in a way to prevent further operations and another appeal.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what you get for swinging wildly in all directions, thinking you'll never hit someone bigger than you (or in this case, deeper pockets) or thinking there will be no repercussions for careless actions.

Theil bankrolling the trial/court case is no different that when the NAACP or other organizations bankroll trials/court cases for other select individuals in the eyes of the law.
 
staknhalo said:
Well, that's what you get for swinging wildly in all directions, thinking you'll never hit someone bigger than you (or in this case, deeper pockets) or thinking there will be no repercussions for careless actions.

Theil bankrolling the trial/court case is no different that when the NAACP bankrolls trials/court cases for select individuals.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly believe that?
 
staknhalo said:
Right, and I'm arguing, in the eyes of the law, Theil or the NAACP bankrolling a case is no different from one another.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I do take issue with a rich douchebag with a personal vendetta getting to shut down any media outlet he doesn't like. Something isn't right about that.
 
maverikv said:
I don't disagree. I do take issue with a rich douchebag with a personal vendetta getting to shut down any media outlet he doesn't like. Something isn't right about that.
Click to expand...

And that's a subjective opinion/view of things.

Others might say (in their own subjective opinion) a gay man (or, for sake of argument let's even say a gay douchebag) took down another douchebag and his douchebag publication (that many, many, many others had problems with for their douchebag behavior) for outting him. Even if he did so by proxy. But, in the end the douchebag with with douchebag publication was found to be acting unlawfully. And they paid the price for it.
 
1. They didn't out him
2. Even if they did, as a public figure that supports anti-gay politicians, him being gay is very very newsworthy

staknhalo said:
And that's a subjective opinion/view of things.

Others might say (in their own subjective opinion) a gay man (or, for sake of argument let's even say a gay douchebag) took down another douchebag and his douchebag publication (that many, many, many others had problems with for their douchebag behavior) for outting him. And in the end, the douchebag with with douchebag publication was found to be acting unlawfully.
Click to expand...
 
maverikv said:
1. They didn't out him
2. Even if they did, as a public figure that supports anti-gay politicians, him being gay is very very newsworthy
Click to expand...

http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people

And even if you think it's newsworthy, fine. But that's also subjective. Others would think it isn't. Theil didn't decide to take his outting to court, but that was the very thing the Hogan case was about (an argument on if a particular story was newsworthy). And the courts/jury decided not newsworthy in the end. And that's the law of the land.
 
He was already out in silicon valley when they wrote that. That's not an "outing"

And its not subjective. He's a public figure trying to impact national elections. If you are gay, for example, you don't think it's newsworthy to you that this rich guy supporting people who want to legislate against your rights is actually gay too? How is that 'subjective'

staknhalo said:
http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people

And even if you think it's newsworthy, fine. But that's also subjective. Others would think it isn't.
Click to expand...
 
maverikv said:
He was already out in silicon valley when they wrote that. That's not an "outing"
Click to expand...

Lol, ok. I'll bite. So what would be outing him then?

maverikv said:
And its not subjective. He's a public figure trying to impact national elections. If you are gay, for example, you don't think it's newsworthy to you that this rich guy supporting people who want to legislate against your rights is actually gay too? How is that 'subjective'
Click to expand...

Entirely subjective. If others are able to think the opposite or hold the opposite view, then it's subjective. By definition. I mean, why did Hogan win then (as in, any court/case was found in his favor at all) if it wasn't a subjective view you hold? He's a public figure. According to you it should stop there and has no way to be pursued further. But it didn't, he won his case in the end. So your view on this is obviously subjective.
 
Hulk Hogan won because gawker acted like assholes and the dumbass jury couldn't separate that from the law.

staknhalo said:
Lol, ok. I'll bite. So what would be outing him then?



Entirely subjective. If others are able to think the opposite or hold the opposite view, then it's subjective. By definition. I mean, why did Hogan win then (as in, any court/case was found in his favor) if it wasn't a subjective view you hold?
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bos
like this
maverikv said:
Hulk Hogan won because gawker acted like assholes and the dumbass jury couldn't separate that from the law.
Click to expand...

Subjective.

Also, you never answered what would constitute outing Theil according to you. Becasue you said he was already in Silicon Valley when they outed him; so that doesn't really count as outing him (according to you). :confused:
 
maverikv said:
He was already out in silicon valley when they wrote that. That's not an "outing"

And its not subjective. He's a public figure trying to impact national elections. If you are gay, for example, you don't think it's newsworthy to you that this rich guy supporting people who want to legislate against your rights is actually gay too? How is that 'subjective'
Click to expand...

Speaking as someone that is gay: No, I don't.
 
If you're going to do that then what's the point in discussing any of this? Anything and everything is subjective.

I would have considered it outing if only his family and very close friends knew he was gay, which was not true. Once a wider audience has that information you can't control that story anymore, and you can't expect to be able to.

He wasn't mad about the supposed outing anyway, he was mad at their criticism of him.

staknhalo said:
Subjective.

Also, you never answered what would constitute outing Theil according to you.
Click to expand...
 
maverikv said:
Why the heck is the hypocrisy of a public figure in his public dealings not newsworthy to you?
Click to expand...

Because I don't care who people are fucking. It's none of my business and none of anyone else's either. As long as the sex is between consenting adults, I don't care.
 
Derangel said:
Because I don't care who people are fucking. It's none of my business and none of anyone else's either. As long as the sex is between consenting adults, I don't care.
Click to expand...

Who they are fucking isn't the point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top