Gawker found guilty in Hogan Case

[Gfted1]

YA I KNO was dumb of me, but still.

I find it hard to believe you "didn't mean to start all this" when your unsolicited reply started with:

 

Hi, you didn't ask me. Don't give a ****, here's my answer:

[Valsuelm]

Jesus holy ****, sorry everyone. Didn't mean to start all this.

 

You didn't, Bruce did. Or did you forget you were responding to him?

 

If Bruce is a troll, he is one of the most successful I've seen. If he's not, he's one of the thickest slices of superficial I've ever come across.

[Bartimaeus]

The whole 'view post anyway' thing really does need to go away.

 

It's supposed to be 'ignore', not 'maybe kinda sorta ignore'.

I agree...but I also disagree. It's a personal problem - I have the ability to not look at posts from users whose posts I don't want to see, and I fail to do it. That's my fault, simple as that. But yes, for those of us, including myself, who are weaker and unable to resist, a more strict ignore list would be great. But...things are O.K. as is.

 

Okay Barti I tell you what ...please forget the previous post 

 

I would like to extend the hand of friendship....lets start over. I'll also admit I do sometimes provoke you  because you always overreact and its funny but I wont do that anymore?

 

Someone like Hurlshot can agree its official and lets try to be nice to each other ...what do you think? We have nothing to lose?

Oh, so you are a troll. Good to know, and honestly, it's nice to see you confess. Well, self-admittance is the first step on the path to curing your disease, my friend. But also, you're completely missing the point: the way you think of me, how you talk to me...is utterly of no consequence to me. I...and others...have laid out many...so many...times what we would like to see improve from you. You can take comfort in the fact that I'm just as stubborn as you are in this regard - probably even more so, in fact. I'm leaving the ball in your court, though.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Valsuelm]

[Bartimaeus]

I find it hard to believe you "didn't mean to start all this" when your unsolicited reply started with:

He didn't start this, though. Bruce is literally the one that asked for that sort of feedback. Sure, he asked specifically Elerond, but this is a public forum - if he literally only wanted Elerond to reply, it should've been a PM...like many other posts of Bruce's, to be honest.

 

Personally, I rather disagree with much of Longknife's appraisal of Bruce - of course, that's not to say my own view of him is that much more positive, but it's nonetheless pretty different. My posts have been more a result of Bruce's argument with Amentep (as well as numerous past arguments) than anything.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Gfted1]

Of course anyone can address any post in a public forum. I just find the whole innocent act to be pretty disingenuous.

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, fair enough - I should've actually addressed that to Longknife, not you.

[Elerond]

 

Can  I ask you a question and please be honest as the feedback is important to me. From my side I consider you someone who I  have never had any issues having a debate with. I consider our forum interaction very healthy but how have you found me..am I rude at times, condescending? Or am I normal to you ?

 

 

I would say that you aren't atypical internet forum user

 

Late answer, because I don't really read this topic but I saw in latest page that somebody had asked something from me. So I looked up who had been need of my unlimited wisdom  .

[Amentep]

But I would like Amentep to comment but lets not try to influence him ..let him make his own mind up

Comment on...?

[Longknife]

 

YA I KNO was dumb of me, but still.

I find it hard to believe you "didn't mean to start all this" when your unsolicited reply started with:

 

Hi, you didn't ask me. Don't give a ****, here's my answer:

 

 

 

Yeah I know, was stupid on my part. I guess what I mean is I expected a reaction, but not THIS MUCH of a reaction. So now I feel dumb and wreckless.

[BruceVC]

 

But I would like Amentep to comment but lets not try to influence him ..let him make his own mind up

Comment on...?

 

 

 

 

The whole 'view post anyway' thing really does need to go away.

 

It's supposed to be 'ignore', not 'maybe kinda sorta ignore'.

I agree...but I also disagree. It's a personal problem - I have the ability to not look at posts from users whose posts I don't want to see, and I fail to do it. That's my fault, simple as that. But yes, for those of us, including myself, who are weaker and unable to resist, a more strict ignore list would be great. But...things are O.K. as is.

 

Okay Barti I tell you what ...please forget the previous post 

 

I would like to extend the hand of friendship....lets start over. I'll also admit I do sometimes provoke you  because you always overreact and its funny but I wont do that anymore?

 

Someone like Hurlshot can agree its official and lets try to be nice to each other ...what do you think? We have nothing to lose?

Oh, so you are a troll. Good to know, and honestly, it's nice to see you confess. Well, self-admittance is the first step on the path to curing your disease, my friend. But also, you're completely missing the point: the way you think of me, how you talk to me...is utterly of no consequence to me. I...and others...have laid out many...so many...times what we would like to see improve from you. You can take comfort in the fact that I'm just as stubborn as you are in this regard - probably even more so, in fact. I'm leaving the ball in your court, though.

 

No I said sometimes, you seem to get worked up over nothing?

 

But lets see if Amentep can maybe give his input around this truce

 

Amentep I want to stop fighting with Barti ....I looked on this whole thing as something  that was  just a joke but it seems to have escalated. Barti does things that annoy me and then I annoy him and then he annoys me ....so I suggested we have a truce 

 

 

The only way I think it will work is if we both list the things that annoy us so its clear...please dont ask me to remember what you guys have said in the past as there has been so much said I'm not sure whats real 

 

And then its official, we dont do those things to each other? Someone like Gfted, Hurlshot, TN or Amentep can basically recognize the terms and the first person who breaks  the truce the entire forum will know has no integrity?

 

It may sound complicated but its not, I only have 2 things you do that annoy me and this way there is no doubt that  the other person shouldn't say he was unaware ....so for example I cant say later " I never knew I couldn't joke "?

Edited March 25, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

YA I KNO was dumb of me, but still.

I find it hard to believe you "didn't mean to start all this" when your unsolicited reply started with:

 

Hi, you didn't ask me. Don't give a ****, here's my answer:

 

 

 

Yeah I know, was stupid on my part. I guess what I mean is I expected a reaction, but not THIS MUCH of a reaction. So now I feel dumb and wreckless.

 

Yes but this argument with Barti and me has nothing to do with you ?

 

 

Also guys this is not a big deal? I'm not angry at all but I'm sure Barti and I can reach common ground?

 

But we need a third person to ensure the truce holds 

[Calax]

I think at one point the boss at Gawker had specifically said that if Hogan won, Gawker would go out of business because of their inability to pay. Admittedly it's kinda hilarious in a certain light because their entire premise (clickbait articles with an agenda) came back and bit them in the ass when they pushed the click bait and saucy journalism because they thought they were "right", only to find out they were wrong.

 

Specifically I'm betting they thought they could get away with this and get the public on their side because Hogan wasn't a giant crowd favorite and had some demons in the past. Thus "taking down" the villian (in their view) would be akin to being a super hero... never mind that the law disagrees with them!

[kgambit]

 

Yes but this argument with Barti and me has nothing to do with you ?

 

 

 

 

Right up to the point when you made it public

[BruceVC]

 

 

Yes but this argument with Barti and me has nothing to do with you ?

 

 

 

 

Right up to the point when you made it public

 

Sorry this post is a bit   belated

 

I didnt mean that LK or anyone else  cant comment on my debate with Barti, this is a public forum and I prefer people commenting 

 

I meant he is not the cause of Barti and me arguing now ...thats what I meant by "yes but this argument with Barti and me has nothing to do with you "  

[ShadySands]

So this happened

Gawker files for bankruptcy and puts itself up for auction

[Namutree]

So this happened

Gawker files for bankruptcy and puts itself up for auction

HAHAHAHAHA! Get pwned Gawker.

[Meshugger]

So this happened

Gawker files for bankruptcy and puts itself up for auction

 

Do you feel it? A little spark of pure joy kindling in your soul? 

 

[kirottu]

So this happened

Gawker files for bankruptcy and puts itself up for auction

Partai!

[Volourn]

R00fles!

[BruceVC]

So this happened

Gawker files for bankruptcy and puts itself up for auction

Many of you guys seem genuinely happy that Gawker will be filing for bankruptcy...people will be losing there jobs, there are people who may have families to support?

 

Volo\Meshugger what about free speech and supporting companies and businesses that believe in the principle of free speech like Gawker. Just because we dont like what they say does this mean they dont have a right to say it?

 

I'm seeing a degree of inconsistency around how some people  view Gawker, it seems to me its like we say believe in the importance of free speech but not if they say things we dont like ?

[kgambit]

 

 

I'm seeing a degree of inconsistency around how some people  view Gawker, it seems to me its like we say believe in the importance of free speech but not if they say things we dont like ?

 

 

That's because you've never attempted to understand the legal issues.  There is no inconsistency whatsoever.  Despite claims by some others that Free Speech is all inclusive, it is NOT.  There are notable exceptions (including Libel and Slander for starters) to the "Free Speech" protections offered under the First Amendment.   What Gawker did was not protected under the first amendment.  You should read up on Invasion of Privacy and the concepts of  Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Intrusion, False Light,  and Appropriation although iirc the latter two are not pertinent to the Gawker Case but I'll defer on that to the lawyers.  

 

Anyway, some study material for you: 

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/privacy-newsgathering

 

http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=lawreview

 

http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2104&context=faculty_publications

 

And two excerpts:

 

The Public disclosure of Private Facts:

 

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D defines this tort: 

 

“One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that:

 

(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and

(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.”

 

and Intrusion:

 

 

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B defines intrusion as follows:

 

 

“One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

 

 

 

I'll hand off to Gromnir for any further discussion of the issues.

Edited June 11, 2016 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I'm seeing a degree of inconsistency around how some people  view Gawker, it seems to me its like we say believe in the importance of free speech but not if they say things we dont like ?

 

 

That's because you've never attempted to understand the legal issues.  There is no inconsistency whatsoever.  Despite claims by some others that Free Speech is all inclusive, it is NOT.  There are notable exceptions (including Libel and Slander for starters) to the "Free Speech" protections offered under the First Amendment.   What Gawker did was not protected under the first amendment.  You should read up on Invasion of Privacy and the concepts of  Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Intrusion, False Light,  and Appropriation although iirc the latter two are not pertinent to the Gawker Case but I'll defer on that to the lawyers.  

 

Anyway, some study material for you: 

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/privacy-newsgathering

 

http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=lawreview

 

http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2104&context=faculty_publications

 

And two excerpts:

 

The Public disclosure of Private Facts:

 

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D defines this tort: 

 

“One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that:

 

(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and

(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.”

 

and Intrusion:

 

 

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B defines intrusion as follows:

 

 

“One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

 

 

 

I'll hand off to Gromnir for any further discussion of the issues.

 

Thanks for the information and you are right, I have never attempted  to understand the legal issues...its gets overly complicated and everyone seems to have different views

 

 

But my point is more about the overall impact of Gawker being sued and now filing for bankruptcy

 

Why not fire the editor and person who found  the initial  story?  That way Gawker will learn its lesson, why is the entire company now being punished for a bad article...people who had nothing to do with the editorial decision to post the video could now be unemployed....it doesn't seem fair or just 

[ShadySands]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker

[Longknife]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqmlffA9U9s