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

xp I don't know why you think that's so obvious from the way the story is written that you don't need to back it up at greater length! Maybe you're privy to inside info here, I don't know.

some dude, i am 100% sure that they were completely conscience of the fact that this story was being attributed to an openly gay writer to soften the blow of outing the man.

to quote gawker: ...the post, which was written by staff writer Jordan Sargent and edited by several other Gawker staffers

it takes an army, y'all.

Wasn't johnjcook the guy who wrote all the Lena Dunham articles?

1 theres nothing there that isnt totally normal investigation, like he got a tip and made a phone call 2 he then used the info to totally undermine the guys blackmail attempt

how did he undermine it exactly

i actually wouldnt be surprised if the worst is true, and that jordan expressed interest up front, as soon as he got the tip, but the guy didnt give gawker the evidence (texts etc) until after geithner declined to give in to his demand. The story implies it didn't happen like that but it would make the most sense

he then used the info to totally undermine the guys blackmail attempt

Did he? Now the whole story is public when, 24 hours ago, it wasn't. I'd say that the extorter not reaping the benefits of the extortion is secondary.

http://politburo.gawker.com/hi-i-am-a-cute-and-very-harmless-kittycat-1718635904
― some dude, Friday, July 17, 2015 9:16 PM (21 minutes ago)

some dude
Posted: July 17, 2015 at 3:47:02 PM
how did he undermine it exactly

u cant blackmail someone with public info

I take issue with (1) but there's too much about this that's not "totally normal" to go into; as for (2) that's a ... really generous attribution of motivation, considering it would have been a much bigger, better, and more defensible story for Gawker if the extortion had worked, even a little bit.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/17/gawker_libel_suit_publication_should_worried.html

with public info

WHAT THEE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?

also wow that the "this post has been removed" with visible details from the story cellphone pic block is still up on the popular stories tracker

Your defense to J0rdan's technical criminal liability here is "He published the story, thereby ending the extortion attempt"; if you understood these laws you'd get why it was a crime before he ever finished typing a draft of the story. This is not libel; publication is not required.

u cant blackmail someone with public info

― lag∞n, Friday, July 17, 2015 5:48 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i guess this is assuming that the escort still really thought the blackmail was gonna happen successfully (when it really seems it wasn't at that point) and was upset that jordan went ahead and published before he gave the go-ahead, which we don't know at all

it's a shame they hadn't thought up the "sorry we undermined a blackmail" defense before the "sorry we outed an adulterer" defense

"if this blackmail had gone through, the corruption could have gone all the way up to the white house. you're welcome, obama!"

http://charoshane.tumblr.com/post/124353155320/about-that-gawker-post

I agree that nothing about the man’s behavior indicates he deserved the suffering this post inevitably caused in his life. Except for one thing: FULL SERVICE SEX WORK IS ILLEGAL, and he attempted to participate in this illegal activity. This basically makes the exchange “a story” regardless of who is on the other end of the transaction. It’s why local newspapers often publish police reports naming those arrested for soliciting, sometimes complete with mug shots. I’m not defending Gawker, because their decision to run this was capricious and cruel. But the reactions to this story make me even angrier than the original post.

Escort services aren't technically prostitutes.

yeah let's argue about that rather than the defn of libel

why c/p that particular paragraph from that post - the "THIS IS A STORY" one - rather than any of the bits about the post's actual points about sex worker safety?

That tumblr post makes a lot of good points

why c/p that particular paragraph from that post - the "THIS IS A STORY" one - rather than any of the bits about the post's actual points about sex worker safety?

probably because we have been talking about whether or not this is a story?

yeah but that isn't how the author meant it I don't think - she is aware that gawker is not a local newspaper

http://politburo.gawker.com/a-statement-from-the-gawker-media-editorial-staff-1718649722

like saying "it's a crime & will be reported whoever the other person is" is a rhetorical point & obv not true in the case of a gossip site

wow. all those writers and editors have decided THAT is the battle they want to pick.

my eyebrows just went UP at them doubling down on this

lmao at these fuckboys getting all #jesuischarlie at having their garbage taken down because literally everyone that doesn't work there thinks it's disgusting

man that sure must be some good kool-aid they've got over there

yes editorial independence is very important butttttt

over this

fighting it over this is not the way you're going to preserve it

why c/p that particular paragraph from that post - the "THIS IS A STORY" one - rather than any of the bits about the post's actual points about sex worker safety?

― lex pretend, Friday, July 17, 2015 5:57 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sorry if i chose the wrong para. i pasted it because i agreed with the "post's actual points", and that paragraph seemed like the one most likely to get people to click through.

the ethics of c+p, do you paste an intro paragraph or do you paste a summary paragraph

the writers at gawker are disgusting people who want to shield their desire to out people for clicks behind the rhetoric of the labor struggle

shameful beyond my poor powers to describe

"we need to be free to out conde nast execs, irrespective of business concerns"

lmao at these fuckboys getting all #jesuischarlie at having their garbage taken down because literally everyone that doesn't work there thinks it's disgusting

― wins, Friday, July 17, 2015 10:06 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yet another booming post, wins I am madly crushed on you this whole thread tbh

such a weird combo of wide-eyed idealism and cynical bs

hate that this whole affair has me agreeing with dubious characters like wins tbh

dude not just wins. when perez hilton, glenn greenwald and chaki are voices of reason... sheesh!

horrified by the unity in horror at this, yeah

Comment: Then the executives should fire the lot of you and start over.

They probably should, but it wouldn't make any difference. There are 100 people out there ready to replace every single writer Gawker employs and be just as nasty.

Gawker
This post has been removed.
95.5K Tweets about this trend

damn

gawker is such fucking garbage

horrified by the unity in horror at this, yeah

actually this is the single most interesting thing to me in the whole process right now -- that a bunch of capable, in some cases very good writers are banded together in such an obviously, transparently odious position that everybody, absolutely everybody knows they're wrong...and we have direct experience that some of these bros are reasonable people with the ability to sort through complex questions in a sober and mature way...and what they all arrive it is "no wai, free speech, we get to publish what we want, imagine the slippery slope if we don't out some guy for no reason at all"

that's it exactly. feels like some grand act of wilful seppuku that nobody quite understands yet

yes hence my cult reference

they can take a stand on principle about who gets to decide to take posts down while still leaving open the possibility of coming to that decision on their own.

still.

redtube great websit

it's like if The Wave ended with the kids calling their teacher's invocation of Godwin's law gauche and demanding a new leader

it's true I summed it all up