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

xp - Um, Le Beteau Ivre what I said was

"Because the concept of "freedom of the press" is that our press (and religion and speech, etc.) is free from interference by the state.
If funding a lawsuit is an attack on freedom of the press, so would it be to organize a boycott of a media entity for outing people... oh, hey, Gawker again."

Which has now been repeated to you by several people like eight times.

Literally no one has disagreed that Thiel wants to hurt (if not destroy) Gawker Media - what you don't seem to get is that that has absolutely nothing to do with our legal concept of "freedom of the press."

xp - I don't agree with it, either.

In this case things are complicated by a wannabe comic book villain libertarian billionaire playing a prominent role - his existence/the existence of billionaires is the fundamental moral crime, not the specific thing he's doing here.

Weve gotten as far as "what thiel is doing is legal but nagl" which is as just and ironic a way for gawker to fall as any rly

his existence/the existence of billionaires is the fundamental moral crime

now this I do totally agree with

except... if rich people can use the government (in the form of lawsuits, which involve well, the "law" which is this thing that involves government u see) as a cudgel against the press, then that does hurt a free press in the sense of an independent press that is not beholden to not pissing off rich people lest they be crushed.

the thing is libertarians historically think that lawsuits and what they consider overlarge settlements in them are one of the _worst_ injustices of modern society and represent the crushing of enterprise. so nobody is saying this is un_constitutional_ but it is massively and deeply hypocritical.

No I get that, Milo, but the legal concept of freedom of the press has not been disputed. Not by me anyway.

Deems p much otm

there are things that are legal but substantially worse than "nagl".

like, say a private individual doesn't like a newspaper's coverage of them, and so they buy the newspaper.

this is also legal.

it also hurts the free press.

and it is also substantially worse than "nagl".

it's nice to know who is actually suing you when you're getting sued, is what i'm saying

By this argument, the press should be able to write anything they want to about anyone, regardless of whether it is true and/or newsworthy, and not face any legal action. They should also be able to repurpose any information they want without citation, attribute any position they want to anyone outside of the context of recognized satire, and basically write whatever the hell they want regardless of accuracy and not face any repercussions; this is clearly not true.

Only if you think speech is absolutely protected, which I don't. It's nonsense for someone who believes in absolute freedom of speech to use the apparatus of the state (the law, including the jury) to shut down a paper. It's fine for most of us who aren't libertarians, though.

there is a constitutional fact that the u.s. government isn't to impinge on the freedom of the press. but there are other things that can impinge on the freedom of the press in many forms that have nothing to do with this, and whether they're constitutional or not they still hurt the ability of the press to serve as an agent that reports things against the wishes of the powerful. its really dumb to confuse the two

That was the essence of the Josh Marshall article I posted yesterday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-huge-deal

thread is boring now

the thing is libertarians historically think that lawsuits and what they consider overlarge settlements in them are one of the _worst_ injustices of modern society and represent the crushing of enterprise. so nobody is saying this is un_constitutional_ but it is massively and deeply hypocritical.

there might be some cynicism on his part here, 'I'm highlighting how messed up the government/legal system is by using it to get what I want'

the legal system is not the state, exactly. in principle it is coeval with the founding of the state at all (e.g. explicitly in the constitution) but it rests on semi-independent grounds (legal tradition, common morality, trans-historical notions of justice etc.) that are supposed to provide space in which people can address grievances with one another (and with the state and with the community as a whole) and resolve them in ways that are relatively free of the sheer assertion of power by the state or the inequalities in power (e.g. money, fame) between parties that can typically result in unfair, unjust, immoral etc outcomes.

in other words, the law is supposed to be used by anyone and everyone who has standing to do so, on their on behalf and on behalf of others if possible.

what makes thiel's vendetta iffy/icky is that he's using the law indirectly/covertly (not claiming any standing of his own to use it to face someone in court) seemingly only in order to harm another party (i.e. way out of proportion to what might possibly deemed reasonable recompense for anything gawker had done to him), using his superior power to make it possible. the implication that this amounts to an attack on the freedom of the press comes, i suppose, because in principle the press's freedom is supposed to protect them on other fronts from assaults by the powerful, so that unless they've broken any laws, a person's redress against the press is always supposed to be other press (buying up the competition, making a broader appeal to the sympathies of the public, other audiences, etc., embracing the press in order to reclaim a story).

WE GOT OPEN LETTER

http://gawker.com/an-open-letter-to-peter-thiel-1778991227

And lastly, I understand that you give codenames from Tolkien for all your projects. What’s this one? (Let me guess: Mordor.)

Strongly worded response on Medium to follow.

I doubt it, Thiel hasn't stamped his own name on anything written for years, has he?

for a guy who thinks hate speech isn't a real thing, he seems awfully inflamed by words speaking ill of his cohort

^

what makes thiel's vendetta iffy/icky is that he's using the law indirectly/covertly (not claiming any standing of his own to use it to face someone in court) seemingly only in order to harm another party (i.e. way out of proportion to what might possibly deemed reasonable recompense for anything gawker had done to him), using his superior power to make it possible. the implication that this amounts to an attack on the freedom of the press comes, i suppose, because in principle the press's freedom is supposed to protect them on other fronts from assaults by the powerful, so that unless they've broken any laws, a person's redress against the press is always supposed to be other press (buying up the competition, making a broader appeal to the sympathies of the public, other audiences, etc., embracing the press in order to reclaim a story). -j.

^^

Is that a very good comparison? xp

haters gonna hate

what makes thiel's vendetta iffy/icky is that he's using the law indirectly/covertly (not claiming any standing of his own to use it to face someone in court) seemingly only in order to harm another party (i.e. way out of proportion to what might possibly deemed reasonable recompense for anything gawker had done to him), using his superior power to make it possible.

exactly. this is what i was saying up thread. thiel's "superior power" rests on nothing but wealth. wealth should not enable one to bend the aparatus of the legal system to one's own ends. this seems self-evident to me. wealth or its lack should not affect one's access to justice in any way. imo, that principle should appeal equally to liberals and conservatives.

the risk of social harm here is as basic and nearly as profound as that which results from lack of access to healthcare and/or inequitable policing. the thiel case is, if not unique, then at least ideal in its ability to illustrate and clarify this. and that's why i'm surprised more articles about it aren't drawing out and driving home the obvious: thiel's wealth should not (must not!) grant him the ability to do this.

There aren't many articles like that because it's obvious and accepted that wealth allows people to do things way more evil than pursue vendettas against bloggers via Hulk Hogan's wandering penis.

Billionaires cannot possibly be held to the same reality as you and me.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas/h68l/chapter13.html

death equalizes all, my friend

NATURE hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.

yeah but Thiel is investing all kinds of cash into the idea of never dying

he not busy being born is busy thieling

i have trouble considering gawker a legit news or press source. it's basically opinion pieces. it is hard to read any article without being told how you should feel about it right in the headline. at least traditional news TRIES to present a sheen of impartiality. even if that is tenuous at times. plus the gawker guy joked about some sick stuff while legally on the record at their trial w Hogan so i don't have much professional respect for them at all.

Billionaires cannot possibly be held to the same reality as you and me.

of course money = power. but the legal system needn't be complicit in this. the idea that we might erect barriers to separate the power of extreme wealth from politics is quite popular at the moment. what i'm suggesting is comparable to that, not to some pie-in-the sky wish that billionaires "be held to the same reality as you and me".

XP The "impartial/objective press" concept is barely even a century old, jfc. Press is press is press, Constitution says nothing about having to report only "legitimate" news and only in certain ways.

Cant believe billionaires get to do legal stuff that i cant afford to do hows that fair

good question, deems

Like what do you think "the press" was like at the time the Constitution was drafted, Bruneau? Like the golden era of Walter Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley? No, it was tremendously partisan and opinionated. If it hadn't been -- and this should be patently obvious -- the First Amendment would have been largely superfluous.

the idea that we might erect barriers to separate the power of extreme wealth from politics is quite popular at the moment.

Which is my point - any time you have such insane wealth floating around in the hands of a few, they cannot be bound. We can talk all we want about reform and the right way to do things but so long as there are Thiels and Kochs and Gateses and Zuckerbergs, they're always going to win.

Milo killin it itt imo

Thiel's crime is not the "attack on the press," it's the influence and power of wealth. ILX demographics point to us all being good liberals-to-progressives, believers in the power of mass movements/boycotts/etc.. Those are used to influence/shutter businesses that do things we find disagreeable. Thiel isn't fundamentally doing anything differently, it's just that his billions give him power comparable to millions of people acting together.

Which is why the stuff about "freedom of the press" is semantically important - go that route and we can't tell Sheldon Adelson to fuck off and die, we have to listen when rightwing nutbags yell about free speech when racists and homophobes get shouted down.

i think both left and right could do to expand their definitions of freedom of speech/press. look at how we're tying ourselves into knots trying not to use an argument that could also condemn the college kids trying to ban problematic speakers that we defend in other threads via a very rigid definition of free speech.

xp that comparison is slightly too cynical about the ways mass movements/boycotts/etc could operate. they have their potential for conformism, participation out of vanity, self-interested motives, etc., but they are premised on an actual agreement between the participants on some point of moral concern - often at not inconsiderable inconvenience to themselves (when what's boycotted is basically a necessity for them), as opposed to the lower negative marginal utility of a billionaire spending to get his way.

but the billionaire wielding power is more likely to elicit complicity, quiescence, on account of what his money can do for him, not any real agreement with what he does.

not sure you can eliminate rich ppl having legal leverage without the whole operation coming apart. as long as legal service cost money ppl with more of it are gonna be able to spend more on them. maybe there's a way to finagle it in but it's not obvious to me

Which is my point - any time you have such insane wealth floating around in the hands of a few, they cannot be bound. We can talk all we want about reform and the right way to do things but so long as there are Thiels and Kochs and Gateses and Zuckerbergs, they're always going to win.

i disagree. i don't believe that the mere existence of massive wealth guarantees the unchecked freedom of the extremely wealthy to do whatever the fuck they want in any/every arena. i reject the implicit "but first we've got to dismantle capitalism" argument. short of that, we can and should work pragmatically to limit the ability of wealth to inflence politics and the law.

as long as legal service cost money ppl with more of it are gonna be able to spend more on them

that's the key. this must be radically curtailed.

so long as there are Thiels and Kochs and Gateses and Zuckerbergs, they're always going to win.

I love how there's only two energy business billionaires in this list, and only because they spend their dumb money in public on right wing kitsch, like buying Scott Walker and the Cato Institute. The BP and Exxon and Shell fuckos have been so much better at staying out of the public consciousness than these other "philanthropists" - rank amateurs, all. Oh, and how 'bout them Waltons?

Anyway, this isn't true. Rich people don't have to win. The promise of egalitarian democracy is that we can control the activities of the super-rich, we aren't beholden to them. They can be restrained by the law, and the law is set by the people. If you truly believe that democracy and the rule of law cannot constrain a billionaire, oh well.

I mean hey break out that guillotine that's been rusting in the shed for two hundred years let's go to town otherwise these rich people, you know, they'll ALWAYS WIN

theyre so rich theyll just buy new heads, come on

Like what do you think "the press" was like at the time the Constitution was drafted, Bruneau? Like the golden era of Walter Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley? No, it was tremendously partisan and opinionated. If it hadn't been -- and this should be patently obvious -- the First Amendment would have been largely superfluous.

― a 47-year-old chainsaw artist from South Carolina (Phil D.), Thursday, May 26, 2016 9:41 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't see why the first amendment is applicable here? Is the government making a law against Gawker?

This is rich people fighting? They already have plenty of laws in their favor.

Is Gawker adding anything to the public good? They just add noise to an already over-saturated Hyper.

Hyper Golden Era or whatever you are talking aabout.

this series has been good

http://gawker.com/the-misery-of-adjunct-professors-keeps-higher-education-1772267323

this post is important

http://gizmodo.com/stock-reaction-gifs-are-for-idiots-1776888204

haven't seen this story covered elsewhere

http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-avril-lavigne-die-in-2003-an-internet-conspiracy-1734185142