I love how Nick Denton disabled comments on his farewell post for Gawker.

"PanchoVilleneuve ST" (PanchoVilleneuve)
08/22/2016 at 19:26 • Filed to: None

NOW THAT’S FAITH IN YOUR PRINCIPLES!

DISCUSSION (23)

Birddog > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 19:36

I got a kick out of that too.

PanchoVilleneuve ST > Birddog
08/22/2016 at 19:38

There’s something hilarious about how, even after losing everything, he still refuses to see what he ever did wrong.

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 19:41

I find it hilarious that they are still trying to claim that they are the victims.

PanchoVilleneuve ST > TheTurbochargedSquirrel
08/22/2016 at 19:42

WAIT WHY WOULD THAT GUY WE OUTED AGAINST HIS WILL EVER HARBOR A GRUDGE?! IT WAS LIKE 9 YEARS AGO!

Birddog > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 19:45

I had to read it twice. It is pretty amazing how blind he’s trying to appear.

PanchoVilleneuve ST > Birddog
08/22/2016 at 19:46

It’s extra funny considering that an apology at any point along the way could have saved his media empire.

duurtlang > TheTurbochargedSquirrel
08/22/2016 at 20:00

Well, they are. Not blameless victims, but victims none the less. If that Thiel guy hadn’t gone on an extremely well funded personal vendetta none of this would’ve happened.

Gawker published a story that was close to the edge. You can argue if it was over the edge or not, but it was close to the edge. If a profitable news company isn’t able to appeal a verdict that (justifiably or not) limits freedom of speech because they’re financially crushed by a billionaire there’s something terribly wrong.

This isn’t about Hogan or his video. It is not about Denton or Gawker. It’s about the ability to use money to crush speech you don’t like. That’s the dangerous precedent here.

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > duurtlang
08/22/2016 at 20:05

I know they are not blameless but they are still acting like this was an attack on them and that they did nothing to justify that attack. Its them acting like they did nothing wrong and not owning up to what they did.

Tekamul > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 20:11

He still has zero interest in objective reflection.

They crossed the line multiple times, and protected themselves with their own deep pockets and the tenuous claim that personal attacks are ok if it's journalism. Then a deeper pocket came along and put the shoe on the other foot.

The bully got bullied.

PanchoVilleneuve ST > Tekamul
08/22/2016 at 20:12

Zero interest or zero ability?

I’m thinking it’s the latter.

duurtlang > TheTurbochargedSquirrel
08/22/2016 at 20:19

I can’t speak for them. However, I do have an idea where they’re coming from.

I’ll make an analogy; Let’s say you make a joke in poor taste about some asshole. Suddenly some well connected guy who’s been hating you for a long time beats you to a pulp, supposedly in defence of the asshole but in reality because he dislikes you. It’s so bad you’re barely holding on to life. You can’t pay your hospital bills, you lose your house and your job.

Did you do something wrong? Yes. Is it all that relevant when discussing the outcome? Barely, because the result in no way fits the ‘crime.’

The troublesome thing is this guy (or a similar guy) can choose to do this to anyone he doesn’t like. The initial ‘wrong’ doesn’t suddenly become ‘right’, but is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Chasaboo > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 20:21

Ding, ding ding!

Tekamul > duurtlang
08/22/2016 at 20:21

This wouldn’t have happened if Gawker didn’t exploit Theil’s personal life for financial gain.

This wouldn’t have happened if Gawker didn’t exploit Hogan’s private indiscretions for financial gain.

This wouldn’t have happened if Denton didn’t lie to a judge about Gawker’s, thus trashing any good will in the court’s eye.

Theil’s an anti free speech bad guy, but Denton’s a free speech cautionary tale. Using free speech as a shield for bad acts as a means to personal gains jeopardizes its future.

duurtlang > Tekamul
08/22/2016 at 20:36

I’m in no way arguing Gawker is the ‘good guy’ here, this isn’t a black and white case. My point is that whatever the wrongs done by Gawker are, they’re insignificant to the consequences this has on the freedom of speech.

Let us suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that in 2018 Thiel will do something highly questionable yet not highly illegal. Not in a sex video way, but in a hurting democracy (or puppies) kind of way. A journalist will catch the story. Had it been about anyone else publishers would line up for this story. But because it’s about Thiel, who will have to balls to publish that story now?

Tekamul > duurtlang
08/22/2016 at 20:52

I agree, the entire event is bad for the position of free speech.

My personal opinion is that Denton owns a significant portion of the blame. He was the enabler of this blow to free speech, which is something he would never entertain in his own mind.

BigBlock440 > duurtlang
08/22/2016 at 21:23

I’ll make an analogy; Let’s say you make a joke in poor taste about some asshole. Suddenly some well connected guy who’s been hating you for a long time Then a few years later, some shady guy says “hey, I’ve got a video of your neighbor boning some chick, do you want it?” You then proceed to play the video on a giant projector screen in your yard for the whole neighborhood to see. Then, that guy you made the joke about a few years ago beats you to a pulp, supposedly in defense of the asshole but in reality because he dislikes you and you haven’t given him any reason to change his opinion . It’s so bad you’re barely holding on to life. You can’t pay your hospital bills, you lose your house and your job.

You’re analogy was missing a little bit.

bubblestheturtle > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 21:35

Rich people fight. Just try to keep from getting crushed fellow peons.

LOREM IPSUM > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 22:24

What surprised me more than anything was recently discovering that Nick Denton and his husband were being forced to move out of their home.

His husband.

So apparently Nick Denton is gay.

I give zero fucks, but it surprised me.

At the end of the day we are all victims of a catfight. A rich bitch catfight, but a catfight nonetheless.

Fuck em. (Not literally, of course.)

Jonee > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 22:39

Well, two courts did agree with him that he didn’t do anything wrong before the case went before a jury that wasn’t allowed to view the actual evidence of his alleged wrongdoing.

His Stigness > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 22:41

It’s too bad he disabled the comments because I was enjoying the huge circle jerk. It was hilarious how everyone sees no problem with Gawker and what they have been doing for years.

wiffleballtony > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/22/2016 at 23:07

Too bad so sad.

PanchoVilleneuve ST > duurtlang
08/23/2016 at 01:49

The dangerous precident would have been the loss of privacy in the name of clickbait.

duurtlang > PanchoVilleneuve ST
08/23/2016 at 02:58

I think I covered that by:

“Gawker published a story that was close to the edge. You can argue if it was over the edge or not, but it was close to the edge.”

Do keep in mind we’re talking about a self chosen celebrity who also chose to boast about his own sexual prowess. That doesn’t make him fair game for everything, but he did decide himself to take his sex life into the spotlight. That makes mentioning the mere existence of this specific sex tape absolutely fair game. You can discuss the righteousness of posting excerpts and the length/details of these excerpts. However, we should not act as if this was a completely random invasion of privacy attack on a private individual.