![]() 05/25/2016 at 13:40 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
![]() 05/25/2016 at 13:46 |
|
Hey Pete,
Fuck. You.
Hugs and Kisses,
-AdabOfOppo
![]() 05/25/2016 at 13:48 |
|
Should you not be directing your F Yous to Gawker for starting this?
![]() 05/25/2016 at 13:52 |
|
Yeah, but think of all they money they made with that clickbait.
Oh wait. Where did it go
![]() 05/25/2016 at 13:54 |
|
And now, look no further than how the writers on Jalopnik treat their readers to get a feel for Gawker’s true colors.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 13:54 |
|
Yup. Picked a fight with a billionaire and got kayoed. Oops.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 13:55 |
|
Peter Thiel. Scary man.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 13:59 |
|
Gawker should be allowed to cover what they see fit. That is what having freedom of the press is about. Mr. Bollea was well within his rights to sue over his perceived damage. That dispute is what the courts are for.
What I take issue with is Thiel using his wealth (and therefore power) to distort the court system in his favor. That is bullshit. And the chilling effect it has already had on our press is very, very bad news.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 13:59 |
|
I do find it pretty funny though, if it is true. The idea of using the Hulk as your proxy for some petty internet drama.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:00 |
|
Was the money used to bribe the defense’s witnesses? That would explain their disastrous testimony
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:04 |
|
I guess they can’t grey their way out of this.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:06 |
|
AJ does need some money...
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:06 |
|
Unless he’s paying the judge and/or jury, how is he distorting the court system?
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:10 |
|
I don’t have an issue with it. Gawker publicly outed him as gay before he wanted to come out, so he got them back by helping fund Hogan’s legal team. That's not distorting the courts, it's just regular old revenge.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:12 |
|
It is sickening you aren’t upset that Gawker posted someone’s private matters and actually call it freedom of the press and then ignore that the courts ruled (without Pete’s involvement) for Gawker to take the video down. But they paraded on posting articles mocking the court by blatantly saying they’d keep the article/video up and planned on ignoring the injunction.
He didn’t use wealth to distort the court system...ffs...He paid for someone else’s lawyer fees, just like Gawkers insurance did for them.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:14 |
|
If Gawker had a case, the plaintiff’s funds wouldn’t matter.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:21 |
|
Because “reasons”.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:22 |
|
I made no comment on Gawker’s case. They chose to report. The courts decided it wasn’t news.
Thiel should not be allowed to fund someone else’s case, ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO HIS ISSUE WITH THE MEDIA OUTLET IN QUESTION, just to drain their budget and put them out of business simply because Thiel dislikes how they have reported about him.
That is what I take issue with. The Gawker/Hulk case I have no opinion on.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:22 |
|
Thiel should not be allowed to fund someone else’s case, ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO HIS ISSUE WITH THE MEDIA OUTLET IN QUESTION, just to drain their budget and put them out of business simply because Thiel dislikes how they have reported about him.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:23 |
|
Thiel should not be allowed to fund someone else’s case, ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO HIS ISSUE WITH THE MEDIA OUTLET IN QUESTION, just to drain their budget and put them out of business simply because Thiel dislikes how they have reported about him.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:23 |
|
I take your point, but I’d suggest that these items are well within the range of gossip and tabloid; personal stuff. As I understand the Thiel business, Gawker kept after him. Gawker is not WSJ or the NY Times.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:24 |
|
It wouldn’t matter if Gawker had a defensible case.
Pretty nice gloss over of what GM did to Thiel there, btw.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:26 |
|
Well said.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:28 |
|
This happens all the time. Just because it is a billionaire you take issue? So should insurance’s not fund the defense lawyers of Gawker or any major corporation for that matter?
And yes you did comment on the case “Gawker should be allowed to cover what they see fit.”
Get real, your anger is misguided.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:28 |
|
Agreed, I’m not sure how somebody funding a lawsuit (with what seems a legitimate claim) is distorting the justice system. If anything it’s allowing a plaintive to receive relief against an entity that they’d otherwise not have the resources to go after.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:29 |
|
TL;DR: Talk shit, get hit.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:30 |
|
So the wealthy are simply better than the rest of us then?
If Thiel has an issue with Gawker, then HE should be the one suing them. Not by proxy.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:31 |
|
Gawker should be allowed to cover what they see fit.
no, freedom of the press is not limitless. Just like freedom of speech is not limitless. That freedom ends where its exercise can cause undue harm.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:31 |
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-…
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:32 |
|
So Gawker
doesn’t
have a case and Thiel’s money
does
matter? So you are saying that Hogan
does
have a case and Thiel is making sure the case is heard?
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:35 |
|
@ADabOfOppo: If you were some abjectly poor person living in some inner-city dump, and you were blatantly mistreated by the police, I shouldn’t be allowed to pay your attorney’s bills to take the matter to court? What if rather than Thiel’s billions, some high-powered attorney had taken Hulk Hogan’s case
pro bono
?
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:46 |
|
Poetic justice.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 14:52 |
|
Then call your state congressman. As of right now you have sided with a shitty tabloid who invaded someone’s privacy.
Gawker didn’t pay for their lawyers either so you should be pissed at them as well.
Like I said before, your anger is severely misguided.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 15:11 |
|
You’re an idiot.
The rich do not deserve the ability to avoid scrutiny just because they are wealthy.
I am not commenting on the merits of the Hogan trial. But letting people like Thiel take down the press just because they disagree with how they are being covered is wrong. That is what is happening here. Put aside your anger at the Hogan trial, and think about what this does to the future of our press if these things continue.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 15:25 |
|
He got Hulk Hogan to beat up his bullies and take their lunch money. Pretty much every 80's kid’s fantasy.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 15:34 |
|
Way to keep it civil. Clearly you don’t understand how the law works or the rules of oPPo.
This does nothing of the sort. Let’s play devils advocate. Let’s say they Gawker published terrible pictures of your mother’s private matters. Let’s say your mother lost her job and had no means to pay for a lawyer. Now let’s say Thiel came to her aid because he disagreed with what happened to you so he funded your case. Do you have an issue with this?
My guess is you say you will because you are so biased on the subject.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 17:02 |
|
The Court agrees with me that the plaintiffs have a case
![]() 05/25/2016 at 17:02 |
|
If Gawker had a winning case, they wouldn’t have to appeal.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 19:00 |
|
Gotcha. Me too.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 19:08 |
|
Yes. And it NOTHING to do with bias. Your argument is ENTIRELY biased.
Peter Thiel had no standing in the Hogan trial. Only Hogan did. Hogan should have funded his legal team himself. And paying insurance for a legal defense is entirely different than someone paying your legal fees for you.
Thiel is using the Hogan trial to silence Gawker Media over their coverage of him. Should the rich be allowed to silence their critics using their wealth and the court system? You are saying they should be allowed to do that because you dislike GM so much.
Look, I have never said anything opinionated about the Hogan trial. I have neither endorsed nor criticized GM for their actions. Only that freedom of the press should be allowed, and the courts get to decide when things aren’t newsworthy, based upon who has standing. No one should be injecting money into that system to hijack it for their benefit; which is precisely what Peter Thiel is doing.
As to your scenario, Fuck You for thinking that; pervert. And, yes, I should be obligated to fund my mother’s legal defense.
As far as the rules of Oppo. I’m done being civil. You are a vindictive, short-shighted asshat who hates GM so much you would allow the court system to be overwhlemed with money to benefit those who already have far too much privilege. Fuck off.
Please, by all means have the mods ban me. I’m done with Oppo. You all can eat a dick.
And just for the record. I think what GM did with Hogan was distgusting and Hogan should get some money for it. Not $140 Million though.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 20:21 |
|
There is something that Hogan’s legal team did to tweak the suit they were bringing that had the effect of letting Gawker’s insurance off the hook and ensuring that Gawker would have to pay the settlement themselves. Do you understand what that was about?
![]() 05/25/2016 at 20:36 |
|
http://clashtalk.kinja.com/anyone-gonna-t…
You’re not alone. I agree. You’re being a jerk though.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 20:42 |
|
Stressed from work and lashed out a bit. No excuse for it though, and I admit to being an asshole.
It bothers me that so many are letting their disdain for GM cloud the larger issues here.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 20:47 |
|
I used to care, but then I got...
![]() 05/25/2016 at 20:49 |
|
Not enough to speak on it, no
![]() 05/25/2016 at 20:59 |
|
Point to Gryffindor.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 21:01 |
|
Those guys are a bunch of Squares #RavenclawForever
![]() 05/25/2016 at 22:08 |
|
![]() 05/25/2016 at 22:24 |
|
In all seriousness, and not saying I disagree with your points, your personal attacks and insults did cross the line. I get the work stress thing though. Since he may not have seen this post, what say you send an apology to The Dummy Guy for the language?
![]() 05/25/2016 at 22:50 |
|
I can do that. Though I would prefer a short term ban. I clearly need a break from the internet.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 22:57 |
|
So...Dusty asked that I apologize. I still vehemently disagree with everything you have said. But I did not need to insult you nor use such foul language.
I won’t apologize for disagreeing with you. But I will say I am sorry for not being civil. Feel free to dismiss my inflammatory post. I’d delete it, but Kinja sucks.
Sorry for being an asshole.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 22:59 |
|
Tell you what. Give him a quick apology in the name of good will and I’ll put you on hiatus for the duration of your choice.
...never thought I’d find myself writing that sentence
![]() 05/25/2016 at 23:03 |
|
Already apologized. I’d link it but Kinja mobile.
How about a week. I should be enjoying my holiday weekend rather than arguing on the internet.
Thanks.
![]() 05/25/2016 at 23:23 |
|
You’ve got it. Hope you have a stress-free holiday and good weather. I’ll be at a rally this time next week, but I’m letting the other mods know so they can remove the ban.