Peter Thiel vs Gawker

[viper37]

The better question here is not about Donald Trump or Obama - it is about you and me.

Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy". Their definition of newsworthy is clearly anything that will get them clicks.

That is the question as I see it - is there any line at all, or is any organization that calls itself "media" free to publish *anything* they can get their hands on under the guise of "news"?

As Joan explained the case, Hogan publicly boasted about the tape and its content.

I say, if I shoot a sex tape, then tell everyone I shot a sex tape with, let's say a random yet attractive, but publicly unknown woman, I boast about my sexual performance and make racial slur on this tape, I think it's a really grey area, because neither participant are public figures.  Maybe people would pay to see your sex tape, but I doubt they'd pay to see mine

I think at this point, it becomes a public matter, since I talked about it publicly.

If I shoot such a tape with my girlfriend, don't talk to anyone about it, a hacker take it from my computer and sell it to a newsmedia that would want it (there's likely to be a fetish for fat guys too ), then it's an intrusion of privacy from the hacker and any newsmedia publishing this should be liable for damages.

It's the same with stuff like the Fappenning.  Actresses get their private pictures stolen from their phone or iCloud account = crime.  Actresses get nude on a public beach, get photographed = not a crime.  Said actresses walk into a gala with a tansparent robe = not a crime when the pictures are everywhere.

See, if I walk naked in my home with the blinders and the lights open, it's not a crime if a passing neighbour manages to see me naked.
However, if someone climbs the balcony, or if the closest neighbour use a telescope to picture me naked, than that's definately a crime.
Masturbating myself in my home is not a crime. Doing it by the side of a river while the neighbour is walking her dog in the morning = crime.

The moment you do or talk about something in public, the reasonable expectations of privacy anyone might have disapears, imho.

[Barrister]

The better question here is not about Donald Trump or Obama - it is about you and me.

Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy". Their definition of newsworthy is clearly anything that will get them clicks.

That is the question as I see it - is there any line at all, or is any organization that calls itself "media" free to publish *anything* they can get their hands on under the guise of "news"?

I think that line has been set - by another Gawker lawsuit.

I had to do some googling to remember all the details.  Last year Gawker linked to a story about one David Geithner having sex with a gay escort.  Who is David Geithner?  He's the CFO of Conde Nast and brother to Tim Geithner.  Essentially he was no one.

Gawker was immediately shamed in social media and took down the story within a day.

I'm not certain if Geithner sued Gawker, but everyone seemed to feel he had grounds to.

[Admiral Yi]

Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

[Barrister]

Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

And apparently there is good science to suggest the more older brothers you have, the greater your chance of being gay is.  Which caught my attention as the father of three boys.

[The Brain]

Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

And apparently there is good science to suggest the more older brothers you have, the greater your chance of being gay is.  Which caught my attention as the father of three boys.

Sons are 1) not your brothers and 2) rarely older than you. I think you're safe.

[Admiral Yi]

Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

Not married, pinged my gaydar.

[Martinus]

Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

And apparently there is good science to suggest the more older brothers you have, the greater your chance of being gay is.  Which caught my attention as the father of three boys.

I only have three older half-sisters. So don't sweat it.

[Martinus]

The better question here is not about Donald Trump or Obama - it is about you and me.

Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy". Their definition of newsworthy is clearly anything that will get them clicks.

That is the question as I see it - is there any line at all, or is any organization that calls itself "media" free to publish *anything* they can get their hands on under the guise of "news"?

I think that line has been set - by another Gawker lawsuit.

I had to do some googling to remember all the details.  Last year Gawker linked to a story about one David Geithner having sex with a gay escort.  Who is David Geithner?  He's the CFO of Conde Nast and brother to Tim Geithner.  Essentially he was no one.

Gawker was immediately shamed in social media and took down the story within a day.

I'm not certain if Geithner sued Gawker, but everyone seemed to feel he had grounds to.

Yeah, that was shameful. I have absolutely no problem seeing Gawker going down in flames.

[Martinus]

I don't see how media businesses are more important to protect than healthcare, energy production, sanitation, or what have you. I can live without media.

Yeah, no kidding. Jacob probably supports Gawker only because there is some non-white lesbian feminist involved. Like he did when he supported the evil side on the gamergate.

See you tomorrow or whenever I can be bothered. For the record, I don't normally read your posts but now that I've finally gotten around to figure out how to ban people - if I do accidentally read one of your posts and it reaches this bar of douchiness and deliberate misrepresentation, I'll ban you. Repeatedly. Consider this a warning. - Jacob

[The Minsky Moment]

So you think this court got OJed Joan?

Let's just say there's enough smoke here to suggest the possibility of fire.

Including:
1. Key decisions favoring the plaintiff issued with opinion or explanation
2. Two of them reversed by the appeals court without much ceremony
3.  Press reports that she is the most reversed judge on that court.
4.  Apparently the key qualification that got her appointed to the bench was representing Terry schiavo's parents.

[alfred russel]

As Joan explained the case, Hogan publicly boasted about the tape and its content.

I say, if I shoot a sex tape, then tell everyone I shot a sex tape with, let's say a random yet attractive, but publicly unknown woman, I boast about my sexual performance and make racial slur on this tape, I think it's a really grey area, because neither participant are public figures.  Maybe people would pay to see your sex tape, but I doubt they'd pay to see mine

I think at this point, it becomes a public matter, since I talked about it publicly.

If I shoot such a tape with my girlfriend, don't talk to anyone about it, a hacker take it from my computer and sell it to a newsmedia that would want it (there's likely to be a fetish for fat guys too ), then it's an intrusion of privacy from the hacker and any newsmedia publishing this should be liable for damages.

It's the same with stuff like the Fappenning.  Actresses get their private pictures stolen from their phone or iCloud account = crime.  Actresses get nude on a public beach, get photographed = not a crime.  Said actresses walk into a gala with a tansparent robe = not a crime when the pictures are everywhere.

See, if I walk naked in my home with the blinders and the lights open, it's not a crime if a passing neighbour manages to see me naked.
However, if someone climbs the balcony, or if the closest neighbour use a telescope to picture me naked, than that's definately a crime.
Masturbating myself in my home is not a crime. Doing it by the side of a river while the neighbour is walking her dog in the morning = crime.

The moment you do or talk about something in public, the reasonable expectations of privacy anyone might have disapears, imho.

So if one of the actresses, when asked, had previously said that she had naked pictures on her phone and she thought they were pretty hot, that would make the fappening cool, at least for her?

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, that was shameful. I have absolutely no problem seeing Gawker going down in flames.

OK

But even a lawyer trained in the horrific monstronsity of the Roman civil law tradition can recognize that "they got what was coming to them" is not an ideal way to decide issues of law. 

[Barrister]

Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

And apparently there is good science to suggest the more older brothers you have, the greater your chance of being gay is.  Which caught my attention as the father of three boys.

I only have three older half-sisters. So don't sweat it.

I was careful with saying "caught my attention" rather than "worried me".  If one (or all) of my boys are gay so be it - I'll still love them the same.

And "greater your chance" is hardly a certainty.  My gay nephew is the oldest of three kids.

[Barrister]

Yeah, that was shameful. I have absolutely no problem seeing Gawker going down in flames.

OK

But even a lawyer trained in the horrific monstronsity of the Roman civil law tradition can recognize that "they got what was coming to them" is not an ideal way to decide issues of law. 

And even a lawyer trained in the beauty and light of the english common law must recognize that taking pleasure in someone "getting what was coming to them" has nothing to do with the law.

[viper37]

So if one of the actresses, when asked, had previously said that she had naked pictures on her phone and she thought they were pretty hot, that would make the fappening cool, at least for her?

If she asks her friend to take naked pictures of her while he tells her they will be posted online, she's kinda waiving her expectations to privacy here.  When she goes to a talk show, says her friend took naked pictures of her and posted them online, I just think she shouldn't be surprised that some website will post some of these pictures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan#Gawker_lawsuit

In the case of the iCloud privacy leaks, afaik, none of the actresses publicly boasted about these pictures and their hot naked bodies, none of these pictures were taken in public spot, so it kinda really is an invasion of privacy.  And we all know that as upstanding citizens, no one on this forum would ever dared to have taken a look at some of these young women's pictures...