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.
― boxall, Friday, 17 July 2015 21:51 (ten years ago)
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
― some dude, Friday, 17 July 2015 21:51 (ten years ago)
it's a shame they hadn't thought up the "sorry we undermined a blackmail" defense before the "sorry we outed an adulterer" defense
― da croupier, Friday, 17 July 2015 21:52 (ten years ago)
"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.
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 17 July 2015 21:52 (ten years ago)
Escort services aren't technically prostitutes.
― Treeship, Friday, 17 July 2015 21:54 (ten years ago)
yeah let's argue about that rather than the defn of libel
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 17 July 2015 21:55 (ten years ago)
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, 17 July 2015 21:57 (ten years ago)
That tumblr post makes a lot of good points
― Treeship, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:00 (ten years ago)
probably because we have been talking about whether or not this is a story?
― jason waterfalls (gbx), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:01 (ten years ago)
yeah but that isn't how the author meant it I don't think - she is aware that gawker is not a local newspaper
― wins, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:03 (ten years ago)
http://politburo.gawker.com/a-statement-from-the-gawker-media-editorial-staff-1718649722
― markers, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:04 (ten years ago)
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
― wins, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:05 (ten years ago)
wow. all those writers and editors have decided THAT is the battle they want to pick.
― some dude, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:05 (ten years ago)
my eyebrows just went UP at them doubling down on this
― lex pretend, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:06 (ten years ago)
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, 17 July 2015 22:06 (ten years ago)
man that sure must be some good kool-aid they've got over there
― Οὖτις, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:07 (ten years ago)
yes editorial independence is very important butttttt
over this
fighting it over this is not the way you're going to preserve it
― lex pretend, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:07 (ten years ago)
― 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.
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:07 (ten years ago)
the ethics of c+p, do you paste an intro paragraph or do you paste a summary paragraph
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:08 (ten years ago)
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
― Joan Crawford Loves Chachi, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:08 (ten years ago)
"we need to be free to out conde nast execs, irrespective of business concerns"
― da croupier, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:09 (ten years ago)
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
― 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
― Joan Crawford Loves Chachi, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:09 (ten years ago)
such a weird combo of wide-eyed idealism and cynical bs
― mookieproof, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:09 (ten years ago)
hate that this whole affair has me agreeing with dubious characters like wins tbh
― irl lol (darraghmac), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:10 (ten years ago)
dude not just wins. when perez hilton, glenn greenwald and chaki are voices of reason... sheesh!
― Cory Sklar, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:11 (ten years ago)
horrified by the unity in horror at this, yeah
― irl lol (darraghmac), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:12 (ten years ago)
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.
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:12 (ten years ago)
GawkerThis post has been removed.95.5K Tweets about this trend
damn
― Οὖτις, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:13 (ten years ago)
gawker is such fucking garbage
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:14 (ten years ago)
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"
― Joan Crawford Loves Chachi, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:15 (ten years ago)
that's it exactly. feels like some grand act of wilful seppuku that nobody quite understands yet
― gawker's psychotic monkeys (imago), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:17 (ten years ago)
yes hence my cult reference
― Οὖτις, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:17 (ten years ago)
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.
― j., Friday, 17 July 2015 22:18 (ten years ago)
redtube great websit
― am0n, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:19 (ten years ago)
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
― da croupier, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:19 (ten years ago)
it's true I summed it all up
― irl lol (darraghmac), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:19 (ten years ago)
(ok that's an imperfect analogy, but i just wanted to bring up The Wave)
― da croupier, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:20 (ten years ago)
dunno what The Wave is :(
― Joan Crawford Loves Chachi, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:21 (ten years ago)
the eventual tell-all book is gonna be at least a mid-six figure advance; wonder if this thread will make the appendix
― you are extreme, Patti LuPone. (forksclovetofu), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:22 (ten years ago)
google wave
― am0n, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:22 (ten years ago)
I'd never heard of it either chaki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_%28novel%29
― Οὖτις, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:22 (ten years ago)
er Joanie
― Οὖτις, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:23 (ten years ago)
the unanimity is highly highly questionable to me. though i suppose if you put together "people horrified at a sloppy outing," "people horrified at extortion" and the whole right-wing freakout infrastructure that's primed to capitalize on whatever lefty fuckups come around, well, that's a lot of people...
max's defiant tweet spawned a thread with the most nauseating kind of wannabe sanctimony i've seen in a long time
― goole, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:23 (ten years ago)
wins wins.
― EZ Snappin, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:23 (ten years ago)
This was obv not an outing. Here is one reason why: he might not be gay. He might just like to screw male escorts on occasion. Iirc, the story did not say "here is a gay man". It said "this man attempted to hire a male escort."
altho, if everyone wants to rally around the well connected media exec who moves in the circles of power, then i guess there's not much more to be said.
― got bent (mild cheezed off vibes) (s.clover), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:24 (ten years ago)
gotta say this reminds me of allovasudden people finding the "decent" reason to trounce ellen pao.
― got bent (mild cheezed off vibes) (s.clover), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:25 (ten years ago)
lame stuff clover
― irl lol (darraghmac), Friday, 17 July 2015 22:25 (ten years ago)
Yeah he should have thought twice about moving in the circles
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:25 (ten years ago)
obv?
― goole, Friday, 17 July 2015 22:26 (ten years ago)