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

he'd better, these guys are serious

they already fired a warning shot

my opinion fwiw (which = 0 but w/e) is like, how would it even occur to someone to pursue this story let alone write it let alone print it - moral issues aside it's quite obviously journalistic suicide in a really straight-up blatant regard - like, how could they be so stupid, it's baffling

^this, wondering if m bison was a prophet when he posted about max and j0rd not working there anymore

btw is there another summary i cant read all greenwalds hyperventilating adjectives and not knowing what blackmail is

This afternoon, Ryan reached out to Geithner, because he felt Geithner deserved to know that he had gone to the press. He didn’t receive a response until after I contacted Geithner for a statement, at which point Geithner texted Ryan and asked him to call immediately

Later, Ryan tells me, Geithner promised him that if he could get Gawker to kill the story, Geithner would bring his HUD complaint to President Obama.

This is worded coyly but it just as plausibly reads "active participation in the still-hopeful extortion" as "publication of results of failed extortion," probably moreso.

all dude wanted was a professional dicking down in his hotel room, he really didn't deserve this. i mean, we've all been there, haven't we?

no point equivocating here. they made a mistake. accept it, learn from it & move on.

Here is how New York law defines larceny by extortion (this was also the model for the federal Hobbs Act):

A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will: [...] (v) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or [...] (ix) Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

how could they be so stupid, it's baffling

I felt that way too, especially when I read how shocked the Gawker people were. I think it's a convergence of:

-Gawker has outed public figures in the past
-Gawker cover the nyc media scene, and this guy is an executive at a powerful company
-Gawker believes everyone at a certain wealth level is a celebrity and therefore does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy

So Geithner seemed like fair game, even though to most anyone outside of Gawker he seems like a private citizen and outing random people is a practice with a disgusting history.

Outing people is a practice with a disgusting history

otm, sorry, didn't mean to imply otherwise, I see how I did now.

This afternoon, Ryan reached out to Geithner, because he felt Geithner deserved to know that he had gone to the press. He didn’t receive a response until after I contacted Geithner for a statement, at which point Geithner texted Ryan and asked him to call immediately

Later, Ryan tells me, Geithner promised him that if he could get Gawker to kill the story, Geithner would bring his HUD complaint to President Obama.

This is worded coyly but it just as plausibly reads "active participation in the still-hopeful extortion" as "publication of results of failed extortion," probably moreso.

it really does not at all at no point did jordan do anything other than investigate the story, he made no threats and offered no deals, and then he published the story, this is a beyond ridiculous accusation

was the blackmailer attempting to blackmail based on the exsistance of the story, yes, was the blackmailer jordan, no

did jordan via publishing the story undermine the blackmail scheme, yes

Do you want me to c&p a basic accessorial liability statute too? I thought it was a pretty generally understood concept.

is the distance between blackmail and attempted blackmail similar to the distance between adultery and attempted adultery

lag00n summary for you http://www.fastcompany.com/3048759/today-in-tabs/today-in-tabs-poll-garbage-hunter

So, like, does Gawker not have a lawyer powerful enough to tell their employees to STFU on Twitter when controversial shit happens? Pretty sure any outcome in this situation isn't helped by Max's Gawker Statement of Purpose.

boxall
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 3:02:09 PM
Do you want me to c&p a basic accessorial liability statute too? I thought it was a pretty generally understood concept.

your c&p skills r extremely strong

Here's New York's, just to be consistent: When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another person is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct.

If you read the original article and don't think the author's involvement in the plan was contemporaneous enough to meet that definition, fine. We just read it differently.

pfft xp

xp Extortion is a tricky concept even for lawyers but it's generally a good practice to read the law first before offering your analysis. You are clearly operating at an advanced level so that general advice may not apply to you.

boxall
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 3:04:35 PM
Here's New York's, just to be consistent: When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another person is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct.

If you read the original article and don't think the author's involvement in the plan was contemporaneous enough to meet that definition, fine. We just read it differently.

yr reading is extremely poor and like a million reporters reporting on crime wld be in jail now if it were accurate

if unconsummated blackmail is a no-harm-no-foul thing then why was unconsummated extramarital sex such a bfd

all dude wanted was a professional dicking down in his hotel room, he really didn't deserve this. i mean, we've all been there, haven't we?

― gwyneth anger (patron sailor), Friday, July 17, 2015 3:48 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

needs proper recognition

tbf the CFO might have wanted to do the dicking down himself, we don't know top/bottom/etc..

who cares

semantics of the "professional dicking down"

the escort was expecting to use gawker to his own ends but got the tables flipped on him, right? i don't know if any of this makes gawker criminally liable but that's a pretty low standard for behavior. double-crossing a blackmailer isn't admirable, it just means you belong in a film noir.

like a million reporters reporting on crime wld be in jail now if it were accurate

You get the difference between saying "going to be convicted of this crime" or "should be charged with this crime" and "meets the legal definition of the crime," right? The vast majority of violations of a law like this will never cross any prosecutor's desk. All I'm saying is if it really became a priority for some prosecutor to do so, I think they could get a conviction out of it.

in what sense did the escort have the tables turned on him? didn't he send gawker screenshots of texts, which were then published, while his identity and anything he might not want out there was withheld?

http://politburo.gawker.com/hi-i-am-a-cute-and-very-harmless-kittycat-1718635904?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Today the managing partnership of Gawker Media voted, 5-1, to remove it. Executive editor Tommy Craggs, who helped edit the piece, was the sole dissenter.

The vote to remove the post, which was written by staff writer Jordan Sargent and edited by several other Gawker staffers, comes after widespread criticism from our own readers and other outlets. Along the Craggs, every other member of Gawker Media’s editorial leadership, including Gawker’s editor-in-chief Max Read and the executive editors of Gawker Media’s Politburo, strenuously protested removing the post.

Today's gossip is tomorrow's retraction.

boxall
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 3:14:28 PM
like a million reporters reporting on crime wld be in jail now if it were accurate

You get the difference between saying "going to be convicted of this crime" or "should be charged with this crime" and "meets the legal definition of the crime," right? The vast majority of violations of a law like this will never cross any prosecutor's desk. All I'm saying is if it really became a priority for some prosecutor to do so, I think they could get a conviction out of it

lol
ok
man

Glad you enjoyed, thanks for the free education on the elements of the crime of "blackmail"

good comment:

Do not let this issue vanish, in the way that the Gawker staffers might prefer. Whatever you think of the victim of their blackmail, these actions speak more loudly about gay-shaming, how we treat public figures, and what constitutes ethical corporate rivalry. This does not. This article harms all LGBTQ people, who hide themselves from public scrutiny because institutions like Gawker maintain a sexist mentality that keeps them living in fear and shame.

Consider Gawker media to rest firmly on the foundation of illiberal, anti-LGBTQ tactics, until people have been disciplined, or until Geithner and his family has received recompense for what has happened here.

some dude
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 3:15:40 PM
in what sense did the escort have the tables turned on him? didn't he send gawker screenshots of texts, which were then published, while his identity and anything he might not want out there was withheld?

well he didnt get the favors he wanted

boxall
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 3:20:58 PM
Glad you enjoyed, thanks for the free education on the elements of the crime of "blackmail"

u r good at cutting and posting, figuring out the difference between blackmailing and reporting not so much

no proof of this but i truly doubt the escort would have given gawker the scoop without some assurance of collusion unless he's just plain naive, which seems unlikely given the circumstances. gawker spoiled the blackmail scheme by running the story and ultimately failed to protect the escort's identity. nobody wins.

More or less the same as what they did with the Rob Ford video. Though the blackmailers in that case ended up dead iirc.

what are the five elements of blackmail

Except for all of us who get to feel self-righteous about what a cesspool Gawker is. We're the winners.

there is imo a very good chance the blackmailer was quite naive imo, not a professional criminal and so forth

xps Gawker and the escort were in contact with Geithner simultaneously, prior to publication. The crime was very much ongoing, not a completed, failed attempt. Read the accessory statute again. Why is this so difficult?

all dude wanted was a professional dicking down in his hotel room, he really didn't deserve this. i mean, we've all been there, haven't we?

― gwyneth anger (patron sailor), Friday, July 17, 2015 3:48 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

needs proper recognition

― Upright Mammal (mh), Friday, July 17, 2015 9:08 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tbf the CFO might have wanted to do the dicking down himself, we don't know top/bottom/etc..

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, July 17, 2015 9:10 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

most (not all) of the scenes the scort has filmed are of him topping, i checked my journalistic sources i.e. tube sites

It's hard to remember the order of the steps of blackmail. I'm sure he'll get it right some day.

literally u cannot investigate an ongoing crime w/o being an accessory i do not think this is true

it's amazing what you dorks are taking away from all this and arguing about smh.