"Sneaky Pete" (trappster)
03/18/2016 at 22:10 • Filed to: None
6
13|
"Sneaky Pete" (trappster)
03/18/2016 at 22:10 • Filed to: None | 6
| 13 |
Couldn’t care less if the shitstain that is Gawker disappears, just hope OPPO survives. If not, we must find a new home.
f86sabre
> Sneaky Pete
03/18/2016 at 22:15 |
|
Seems like contempt of court is not a good way to set yourself up for appeal.
Xyl0c41n3
> f86sabre
03/18/2016 at 22:18 |
|
That post was made a while ago. And their right to leave it up was later upheld on appeal, IIRC. But all that happened before this lawsuit.
|
f86sabre
> Xyl0c41n3
03/18/2016 at 22:19 |
|
Ah, context is everything.
Van Man, rocks the Man Van
> Sneaky Pete
03/18/2016 at 22:21 |
|
I must live under some sort of rock. Can someone explain what's been going on with this? I keep seeing it but have no idea what's going on.
|
Sneaky Pete
> Xyl0c41n3
03/18/2016 at 22:22 |
|
Had they taken the video down when they were first told, this whole lawsuit thing may never have happened, and surely wouldn’t have been as severe a punishment...especially when considering it is the same judge.
Urambo Tauro
> Sneaky Pete
03/18/2016 at 22:23 |
|
I liked this one better:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras
> Van Man, rocks the Man Van
03/18/2016 at 22:24 |
|
gawker exposed hogan with a sex tape awhile ago
hogan sued
hogan won $115m today
Gawker is slowly imploding
Flynorcal: pilot, offshore sailor, car racer and panty thief
> Sneaky Pete
03/18/2016 at 22:30 |
|
If the Hulkster is giving anybody a well deserved deep dickin’ it’s a well deserving Gawker. Shame you can’t bring cameras into the court room. That’s a tape I’d watch.
|
Xyl0c41n3
> Sneaky Pete
03/18/2016 at 22:48 |
|
They were arguing first amendment protections. Under that argument, leaving it up made sense. That Hogan won means a dangerous first amendment precedent has now been set. This case will have much broader reaching impacts than just Gawker and Gawker Media.
Negative impacts.
THAT is the real story here.
FTR, I don't think Gawker should have published it to begin with. I think it was crass and low class. But what this case will do to OTHER media companies in the future is also disgusting.
Mercedes Streeter
> Xyl0c41n3
03/19/2016 at 09:11 |
|
Well see, in this case I have to defend Hogan. The media has been going way too far in recent years. With Gawker? First, the awful Hogan story, then them outing someone for petty reasons (he didn’t pay his escort), and so many more awful stories.
Then there’s InTouch magazine, who will go to any extreme for that sweet cash. Like, I honestly wish Caitlyn Jenner would just go away for what she has done to the trans community...but even I say that it was absolutely deplorable how the tabloids (especially InTouch) treated her before she pretty much was forced to come out.
The media should not have the legal right to ruin someone’s life. Like yeah, Hogan is an asshole, but that shouldn’t give anyone the right to abuse the first amendment to ruin him.
And heck, look at this current election... The media is almost entirely in Hillary’s pockets, so there’s a nonstop stream of anti Bernie articles like there’s no tomorrow. Someone needs to put the brakes on the media, and I hope the Gawker case is ground zero. :)
|
Xyl0c41n3
> Mercedes Streeter
03/19/2016 at 09:32 |
|
No.
|
Mercedes Streeter
> Xyl0c41n3
03/20/2016 at 06:41 |
|
That was an awkward response to come from you. :(
I mean, I hate Hogan too, but I hate the current state of the media more.
yamahog
> Mercedes Streeter
03/20/2016 at 08:45 |
|
She’s a journalist, hence the 1st Amendment concerns.