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

it's about ethics in journalism reading

Not comparing it to Klan, just brought it up as a counterproductive approach to a defense.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's better than assuming that not having a "pass" is enough to prevent people from assuming the worst and rolling with it.

Best part of the "four" comment is imagining how hard Gawker's legal team must gone in on Daulerio's asshole in its aftermath. Dude must barely be able to walk at present.

uhhhhh

Lol

http://babysimpson.co.uk/gallery/frames/6/2f32/239.jpg

Gawker's legal dream team

from the NYT on Tuesday, straining as ever to preserve decorum

Later, when he found out that his shock-radio friend, known as Bubba the Love Sponge, had been responsible for filming the encounter,

initially I laughed and then realized well yeah who else is Hulk Hogan going to hang out with

it's about ethics in journalism reading

― Mordy, Thursday, March 10, 2016 10:30 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what does this even mean? its about finding lots of people dumb for not getting context clues

context clues? what kind of context, what kind of clues? like, this is a deposition, don't joke about sex crimes involving 4 year olds?

im talking about people that didn't realize he was joking, who took it at face value that he literally was ok with child porn

im not defending the guy, just annoyed at the level of reading comprehension

i know how you feel

good one!!

I don't think people think he was serious. Joking about that is still gross, and reflects the site's self-congratulatory aren't we scandalous? amorality

When you are embroiled in a legal case that hinges explicitly on what salacious stuff you can or cannot publish, and the legal line between the two of them is so fine as to be practically invisible, it's such a terrible idea to joke about anything, really. Unless you're not serious about winning. What moron thinks a deposition is the right place to make a "joke" about sex tapes featuring children? Talk about "privilege." You're under oath, you're on the record - you don't fuck around. So, sure, context clues, etc., it was "obviously" a joke. But it does beg the question: where is the line and what line is the site unwilling to cross? You know, basically what the moron was asked. Because exactly, precisely, legally where that line is drawn is directly relevant to their defense. What a dummy.

Sad!

Hey, man, Gawker shouldn't have to constrain their id in the courtroom or anywhere else.

hahahahaha wait I was ignoring this and got some details wrong; I assumed dude said he wouldn't release a sex tape older than 4 years, not that the cutoff age for a sex tape participant that would make him withhold the tape was 4 years old, largely because what kind of moron makes that type of flip comment in a deposition?

a.j. daulerio, apparently

then again, he no longer works for gawker and might have been overselling the cynicism

overselling the cynicism the gawker story

soundtrack by Live

More like Megadeth.

what did he say exactly?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/business/media/gawker-editors-testimony-stuns-courtroom-in-hulk-hogan-trial.html?_r=2

The former editor, Albert J. Daulerio, a defendant in an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit brought by the retired wrestler Hulk Hogan, was asked by the plaintiff’s lawyer where he drew the line when it came to posting videos of people having sex.

“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.

“If they were a child,” Mr. Daulerio replied.

“Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.

“Four.”

edgy stuff

dude should work with vice

w t f

I don't think people think he was serious. Joking about that is still gross, and reflects the site's self-congratulatory aren't we scandalous? amorality

― Treeship, Friday, March 11, 2016 8:24 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think "I'm so above the legal process my actions have put into motion" is a transparently stupid position to take most of the time. This particular instance reinforces my opinion.

Also, transcripts are not printed in a sarcasm font.

If I understand things correctly, the tape of the deposition was replayed in the court. This doesn't change my opinion that that statement was incredibly stupid.

For sure, but the deposition is being reported in places like the above Times link. It's not like they print a disclaimer that says "LOL you had to be there" or something.

I don't think people think he was serious. Joking about that is still gross, and reflects the site's self-congratulatory aren't we scandalous? amorality

― Treeship, Friday, March 11, 2016 8:24 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― robbie ca$hflo (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, March 11, 2016 10:30 AM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if you read twitter you will find that there are lots of people that took it seriously

nb im not defending it as a joke!

I guess the takeaway is maybe don't say anything in a deposition that you don't want other people to take literally?

^^^sorta the first rule of depositions, really

ive seen enough Good Wife episodes to get knee-jerk defensive about ppl who use sarcasm in response to hostile questions asked during a deposition

lol yes the real-life experience of watching a TV show is def relevant here

i think gawker deserves any disingenuous straight-reading moral panic they get over this tbh

^^^^

I'm sure there are people here who have actual experience w depositions besides myself, being sarcastic basically signals contempt for the process/the law, maybe not the smartest tack to take

lol yes the real-life experience of watching a TV show is def relevant here

― Οὖτις, Friday, March 11, 2016 11:04 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol just as relevant as the usual ilx sanctimony

lol what the fuck are you talking about do u get paid by gawker per defensive comment itt

its funny how ilx went from the place where ppl were amoral assholes to me to the place where ppl are moralizing assholes to me

the important thing is, i am always wrong, now that we've established that lets get back to finger-wagging at a kid fucking joke

well for a real life analogue you can also look at the bieber deposition from a few years ago

let the record show that i have always tended toward being a moralizing scold, despite efforts to curb this tendency

no one forced you to defend a sarcastic joke during testimony about publishing underage sex tapes xxp

like what kind of person sees a joke [made under oath?] about pedophilia and decides the real problem is ppl taking it too seriously? (answer: someone looking to get paid)

tbrr deej, the thing that was most awful about that deposition was the entitlement. "oh, i shouldn't have to answer to anything. we make our own standards." it's just bullshit/antisocial