hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

^very very early dylan lyrics

don't you know
they're talking about impressions of my sex on my private scrolls of parchment
sounds like a whisper

Maybe there will be a great leveling moment where this kind of behavior is completely normalized and we can all watch livestreams of one another having sex and taking a shit via the CCTV cameras installed throughout our "private" dwellings, but until that day I'm just gonna keep being appalled by breaches of privacy along those lines.

where do you hide your sex tapes?

i think theres a big distinction between "first amendment means redditors can say whatever they want" and "first amendment means the government cant be used to suppress speech that criticizes or lays bare the lives of powerful people."

right, and what I think is "that genuinely important distinction is very unfortunately blurred when the speech in question is video of Hulk Hogan having sex with Bubba the Love Sponge's wife, and the critique contained is 'lol, it's Hulk Hogan having sex'"

you could infer from the number of thefts that there was no right to property but it doesn't seem like a goer to me

tempted to start a poll of potential outcomes for this thread:

*a gawker contributor says they're ashamed of their employer for posting a sex tape, the other side dances around in a tree with ewoks
*someone who thought posting sex tapes was scummy to realize that it's not scummy, the other side gets a ticker tape parade in their honor
*a new gawker post leads to a new debate between people who think it's bad and whichever once and future gawker contributors think it's ok

I only learned of this tape/lawsuit through this thread

I will grant for the sake of argument that publishing, against her wishes, a video of a woman having sex, is legal in the usa

what I don't get is, why is that something you'd think is cool to do?

& resorting to the "ticking time bomb" type argument ("what if we could prevent WW3 by putting on the internet a video of so and so fucking") seems like a very uncool argument

it's an uncool argument Euler but its a hot year for 80s sequels and Matthew Broderick needs a hit and bad

what if we could prevent WWE wrestlemania

Deadspin ‏@Deadspin 1m1 minute ago
Adam Schefter explains why he published Jason Pierre-Paul's medical records: http://deadsp.in/ZXk6JiC

if that's not a rickroll then I don't know anymore

the thing no one itt understands is that all existence and nonexistence is merely the dream of shiva

does shivA HAVE a blog or twitter feed

cyber dust, exclusively

its getting to be where a wrestler can't even snap into his friend's wife's slim jim anymore

lock it

has anyone seen the film Chappie? I really feel like Chappie's plot is relevant here. but I'm not sure, as I haven't seen it.

Again, uk perspective, but over here things like revenge porn & the fappening are now treated as very serious crimes, and the reason for that is that it is widely, almost universally, accepted that these particular kinds of violations are abusive & harmful in a way that goes beyond "privacy" issues. If you're ok with that stuff that's one thing, but the level of doublethink or whatever required to not be ok with that stuff but think it's acceptable to do that to a person as long as ppl have heard of them is just, I couldn't do that, I don't get it. Oh well!

I basically agree tho that tabloid journos have always been sleazeballs and nobody's gonna argue that away, this debate is just a parlour game and eventually this thread will subside back into being another one of ilx's entertaining "ugh look what (publication) published this week" threads

legal defn of revenge porn in the news:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/arizona-makes-deal-with-aclu-wont-enforce-bad-law-on-revenge-porn/

laws in america are catching up to the UK xpost

In New Jersey, sharing explicit images without permission is punishable by three to five years in prison and a fine of up to $30,000. Under California’s new law, revenge porn is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both

Non public figures have committed suicide after having this happen to them. It seems like it would be worse if anything to be famous and experience it

imagine, for example, you have a politician's sex tape, in which the politician can be heard using ethnic slurs. doesn't the public have a right to know, even if a sex tape is published without that politician's consent?

then you would report on the ethnic slurs, and not show the sex tape? I mean, Ian Watkins was convicted of attempting to rape a baby, and if you had footage of the attempted baby rape, would you publish that? Imagine, for example, that it was legal to publish footage of an adult attempting to rape an infant.

Non public figures have committed suicide after having this happen to them. It seems like it would be worse if anything to be famous and experience it

Yet it seems max and co are arguing the opposite because being famous means its "newsworthy". So wheres the line drawn I wonder?

following this thread is making me realize just how amazing a hulk hogan leg drop on gawker would be.

ive got a feeling that jordan and max will be way less invested in defending this stuff when they dont work for gawker anymore, just a hunch idk

― not a garbageman, i am garbage, man (m bison), Sunday, July 12, 2015 10:53 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

also i just want to say that i hate this! i get that people think gawker is scummy--my inbox is filled with emails from these people--but at least do me the courtesy of assuming that i actually believe the things i am saying. i may be a glib scumbag but i am not a liar. my sense is that absent any connection to gawker i might be defending it more vociferously. we will find out whenever i get fired, i suppose.

― max, Monday, July 13, 2015 8:17 AM (13 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

allow me 2 clarify. i think you genuinely believe what you're saying itt. i also think what you believe is heavily influenced by who pays you whether you'd care to admit that or not. i say this as someone whose beliefs twisted and bent towards that of my scummy employer's at one point in my life and when i stopped working for them i felt freer to talk shit about them and what they stood for. idk. yr plenty smart, i just don't think intelligence is necessarily a bulwark towards this kind of face-saving bias.

it's a type of confirmation bias though. people who work at gawker tend to be drawn there for ideological reasons so that its employees are eager to defend it on ideological grounds is not exactly surprising or disingenuous.

Yeah, it's not like there's a draft.

the idea of an online writing draft is p intriguing tbh

announcer: "with the 1st pick in the 2012 new media draft, the atlantic selects....ta-nehesi coates" (idk when he started there, I'm guessing)

commentators: "consensus #1 pick there, great get for the atlantic wow"

and with the 462,392,118th and final pick of the new media draft, the Harrison Family Christmas Letter selects Aunt Carol. Aunt Carol is believed to be a tough sign because the last time we saw her, at a July 4th picnic, she said that she wasn't a very good writer and that she wasn't really interested in helping out with the christmas letter, but that she might be willing to submit a picture if she can figure out how to scan it at walgreens

/endcustos

you must not be familiar with karl malone

following this thread is making me realize just how amazing a hulk hogan leg drop on gawker would be.

this should be the settlement, hogan gets to leg drop nick denton

reasonable

a sex tape is perhaps off brand for "Hulk Hogan", but it certainly is not for "Hollywood Hogan". settlement will turn on whether it is Hulk or Hollywood Hogan having sex on that tape.

gawker lawyers should examine tape for mid-penetration nwo hand signs toward the camera

imo gawker should be much more concerned abt publishing 11th grade book reports that apologize for hot garbage: http://io9.com/armada-will-make-a-great-movie-but-the-book-is-disappo-1717557657

Yeah, that review is a fucking tragedy. I feel like io9 didn't used to be quite so fawning; I was actually able to read a book review there and consider it a legit recommendation. But these days I can practically hear the reviewers making little "pew-pew" laser sounds as they type.

EXPLAIN YRSELVES GAWKERS

I got to "Think 'The Last Starfighter' with some modern twists" and I think I've read enough to make a decision about this book

tbh i was out at "Ernie Cline’s Ready Player One is one of my favorite books..."

tbh i was out at "Ernie Cline’s Ready Player One is one of my favorite books..."

Me too, especially since I'd already read Slate's evisceration of Armada (and hated RP1), but I read on out of morbid curiosity - I wanted to experience the thought process of someone who could make a statement like that and mean it.

i mean look, that's fine, and yes i went ahead and read the whole thing for the same reason, but someone who counts RP1 among their favorite books has no business writing about books

my least fav type of gawker story is children dying in horrible pointless ways

OK, fine, Gawker, you've justified your existence for another day. This piece is great. I actually kinda like the guy's illustrations - they're like a cross between Robert Williams paintings and the political cartoons in The Onion.

now this is my shit

http://jezebel.com/lululemon-diaries-my-life-in-an-exploitative-libertari-1717441616

not dissing gawker, but there's been like 1000000 blog posts about david dees. hell my blog did one in 2009.

http://i.imgur.com/R1raY.gif

now this is my shit

http://jezebel.com/lululemon-diaries-my-life-in-an-exploitative-libertari-1717441616

― goole, Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:47 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

co-sign

if i'd seen that on my own i would have been like "damn i better make sure goole sees this"