General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 342

Oh my bad. Apologies.

 

The norms of the legal process? Settlements are normal and common. Dragging the process out beyond the norm because of an unlimited cash flow.

It was an editorial blunder, just as the Times stumping uncritically for a war was a mistake. The point was to draw a parallel - no outlet is perfect, and to act like Gawker was evil manifest ignores the frequent, often more deleterious, problems with "traditional" media. They took the video down, but left the post that was a rumination on why people are so interested in celebrities private lives up. Mistakes happen, like when Rolling Stone ran a wholly false story about that UVA rape scandal.

No, I'm using context clues and information that has been on the internet for nearly a decade to make educated inferences. I'm not buying the billionaire's justifications wholesale because I'm not a fucking moron that can't think critically.

 

I do wish Thiel had stepped up and funded a lawsuit for this girl when Gawker posted a video of her being assaulted.

 

he was already openly gay when they "reported" that. both thiel and gawker agree with this.

 

Might tell you something about him that he didn't.

 

"I mean, Citizens United isn't that bad. Just because people with money can endlessly fund candidates doesn't mean they'll be beholden to them. Look at •insert shitty example to undermine the actual argument being made•"

 

Of course settlements are normal and common, but are you saying a trial is a "distortion" of the process? Sometimes lawsuits go to trial. Not sure what your point is.

Gawker intentionally posted the Hogan video, not mistakenly. Media outlets often act on the information they are given and sometimes they are wrong. I feel there is a world of difference between the NYT stumping for the Iraq War and what Gawker did.

And Rolling Stone was sued, rightfully so, for they UVA story.

You're guessing.

 

Re: Clinton Foundation, this thread is a pretty good retort to the Vox article on yesterday's AP piece. AP may only have a small subset of Clinton's total meetings, but based on some of these details it seems appropriate to be critical of the foundation despite the good work it may do.

 

Trust me, I am fully aware of why the Hogan case might look more attractive to Thiel that than of an unknown woman. I am not trying to make Thiel out to be some hero of the people.

 

The argument being made isn't very clear to be fair.

I am still trying to understand what exactly is being argued here. Are you, at a fundamental level, arguing against the idea of somebody suing a media company with the assistance of a third-party sponsor?

 

Good twitter follow of Trumps "speech" today.

 

Some questions for those who are cheering Gawker's demise
Does it give you pause that, even if the Hogan post was offensive and should never have been published, that a federal judge and federal appeals court both ruled prior to the jury verdict that the post was “newsworthy” and protected by the First Amendment?

--Even if you think Gawker’s publishing of the Hogan tape should not have been protected by the First Amendment – again, as an appeals court previously ruled – do you think that it was fair that the jury awarded Hogan $140 million dollars, 145 times more than the average judgement in wrongful death cases in United States?

--Do you think it’s fair and just that Gawker – which employees dozens of journalists and staff that had nothing to do with the Hogan story – receive what amounted to the death penalty for one serious lapse in editorial judgement? Similarly, should the New York Times be taken to court and forced into folding for publishing false intelligence that helped lead the United States into the Iraq War? Should the Daily Beast be legallydecapitated for its disgusting article from just two weeks ago potentially outed gay Olympians that live in oppressive countries?

--Do you agree that Gawker should have been barred from appealing both the verdict and the $140 million judgement before declaring bankruptcy and being forced to sell the company? As Gawker’s Tom Socca wrote yesterday, “The company was asking only to survive long enough to put the judgment before a higher court, on appeal. This is, supposedly, how the system works.”

--If you think “but Gawker outed Peter Thiel in 2007 and they posted other distasteful stories over the years too”, do you also think they should be punished for those posts in the court of law, even if they are considered protected speech?

--Do you agree with the variety of other lawsuits and legal threats that Gawker has endured from Peter Thiel’s lawyer that have nothing to do with the Hulk Hogan tape? Does it matter that those are garden variety libel suits that any first year law student can tell you are clearly protected by the First Amendment? Those cost Gawker millions in legal fees as well. If the Hogan suit failed, what if Gawker died by a thousand cuts instead, despite clearly being protected by the First Amendment?

--Do you think that because Gawker’s demise is something you agree with that the same thing won’t happen to newspapers you like in the future? Donald Trump has readily admitted to suing a former New York Times reporter – knowing he would lose – just to try to bleed him of money. Mother Jones spent millions in legal fees just to win a case against a vindictive billionaire in the early stages of litigation last year, only to see the billionaire turn around and start a million dollar fund for other people to sue members of the “liberal press.”

--Oh and by the way, the same law firm that Peter Thiel funded just sent threatening letters to Politico and the Daily Mail on behalf of Donald Trump’s wife Melania Trump and demanded they stop reporting on stories Trump considers false. Do you think they smell blood?

--Maybe you don’t have any sympathy for former Gawker editor AJ Daulerio, the author of the Hogan post, because of his tasteless and offensive joke that made headlines during the Hogan trial. But does that mean it’s perfectly fine for Thiel’s lawyers to bar Gawker from paying for the legal defense of Daulerio, and at the same time, freezing his personal bank account so that he has no money to hire his own lawyer? Should he be forced to defend himself in court without a lawyer?

--Do you think it’s fair and just that more than a half dozen individual reporters are still being sued by Peter Thiel’s lawyer in those non-Hogan related cases, and that Thiel’s legal team is attempting to prevent Gawker paying for the legal defense of those individuals as well? Should individual reporters face serious threat of bankruptcy for posts their employer assigned, sanctioned and published (and again, are protected by the First Amendment)?

--If Gawker is “mean” and “snarky” and has sometimes gone over the moral line by publishing private facts about public figures, should other gossip magazines be driven out of business by other deep pocketed celebrities as well? Should Hollywood band together and launch a thousand lawsuits against the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail and TMZ (even if courts have ruled they broke no law)? What about US Magazine and People? Where do we draw the line?

Maybe your answer is “yes” to some of these questions. After all, a lot of people hate a lot of media organizations, from the New York Times to TMZ. So I have one more question. When every newspaper is forced out of business by one billionaire or another who took issue with stories that many consider distasteful or deplorable or outrageous, how many newspapers will be left?

 

" We're up from five to seven, total not percent "

 

Well he's not wrong. He is way up in the latest poll. 1% to 8% is a pretty big jump. Only 87% to go to get his goal of 95% of the African american vote

 

I am arguing against billionaires being able to bankroll lawsuits as a means to put critics out of business. You keep trying to broaden and generalize the argument, but that doesn't actually work, especially when there is a degree of specificity to what I am actually arguing against.

 

This is weird: The retort is that the headline is wrong, but it's wrong because they only have a subset of data to begin with and admit this in the piece. Doesn't that mean they should keep investigating, not post a headline that is factually incorrect?

This is way better than Matt's piece though: The Clinton Foundation story is being spun out of control

 

What do you think the fix is? Upfront declaration of anyone backing a lawsuit? Upper limits on damages?

I've been trying to think of a way to fix what happened with Gawker/Thiel and my arguments with myself always break down.

 

I want a book offer.

 

FIRST ON TPM: Missouri Supreme Court Just Wiped Most Stealing Felonies Off The Books

 

I'm curious about this and I thought maybe someone here who supports her could answer for me. Has Jill Stein ever actually outlined how she plan to pay for her platform? I know she wants to raise taxes on the rich and cut military spending by 50%. But that would obviously not be enough especially when she says she wants to lower taxes on the lower and middle class. how can you pay for single payer healthcare, ending poverty, a green new deal, free college tuition and canceling student debt, and so on while cutting taxes on the middle class? Bernie's plans didn't go this far and he still would have to raise taxes at least a little. Of course, she won't have to worry about that since she won't win.

 

I agree with you ultimately but I think it's important to remember that this wasn't "one serious lapse of judgment" - Gawker has a history of being a shitty, toxic tabloid, sadly detracting from their best investigative journalism - it doesn't justify what Thiel did and I agree that it's a terrifying precedent - but I think that's something people get hung up on and end up saying "Yeah fuck gawker" because, accurately or not, they're gonna think you don't think this is par for the course for Gawker

 

The MM round up.

 

Because I think it's funny.

 

That reminds me

 

Fwiw MMFA has always been super pro Clinton, having been founded by a guy who's basically a Clinton watchdog. Doesn't invalidate this but i think it is worth bearing in mind