This gets into a couple of points:
As the email conduct in question took place while she was the Secretary of
State, a suit against the Times on that basis would be a more polite version of
the implicit threat of a Trump Department of Justice going after the owner of
The Washington Post.
The concern here is about the wealthy having outsize influence on journalistic
outlets and using that to impose their will irrespective of reality. Thiel is
out for revenge, and if he didn't find it through Bollea's case, he'd likely
have tried it again elsewhere. Bullying by lawsuit is troublesome, whether or
not the bullies would be violating the 1st Amendment.
David
From: PGage <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Gawker exploring options, including sale
I am not sure about this. Could Hillary Clinton sue the NYT for publishing
private and embarrassing details about how she handled her email? No - because
the law suit would be thrown out on the basis, basically, of the First
Amendment.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jon Delfin <[email protected]> wrote:
Point of order: The First Amendment clause about freedom of the press doesn't
apply here. This is not a case where a governmental body took action against a
journalist or news source. This lawsuit was brought by an individual, supported
financially by another individual.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote:
In terms of 1st Amendment interests I think Kevin is wrong, and Mark is right;
Freedom of the Press is exactly as healthy as the well being of obnoxious and
embarrassing publishers. But Kevin's point goes to the heart of the underlying
matter: Does freedom of the press cover publishing somebody's private sexual
acts? I am less worried about a pissed rich guy funding Bollea than I am the
implications of the verdict in this case. Obviously Gawker is horrible, and no
decent decision maker should have let them publish that tape. But I do think
the benefits of a free society in which horrible people can make horrible
decisions like this outweigh the harm. I think I could have lived with it if
the award had been a significant but sustainable fraction of Gawker's working
capital, allowing them to stay in business.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote:
This has been sitting in my inbox to be responded to. And the short version was
if you endorse the idea that you can censor via lawyers and pocket books, then
I think you don't believe in as free of a press as you think you do.
You won, Kevin. Hope you're happy.
http://www.recode.net/2016/6/10/11903764/gawker-bankruptcy-chapter-11-sale-ziff-davis
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:29 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Mark Jeffries <[email protected]> wrote:
But if a rich idiot throws their money around to get rid of Gawker, what makes
you think someone won't try to go after a media source you approve of? The
First Amendment means you gotta hold your nose when it comes to some media. I
may not like Fox News, but I'd rather see the public decide that they choose
not to watch, instead of some rich schmuck trying to sue them out of business.
A quick look at the Gawker homepage and this is the top story:
What a Series of Cosmic Evangelical Thrillers Tells Us About Money in America
Below that was a link to:
Watch A Car Run Over A Motorcycle In This Florida Road Rage
Or how about the post to the right of that:
The Best Memorial Day Deals: Laser Printers, Cheap ThinkPad, Golfing Gear, and
More
I'm not picking and choosing; just looking at the first items on their
homepage. Not news. Not worried if they run out of money and get shut down.
The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of the press to say and print whatever
they want without government censorship, but it is not a blanket protection
against any consequences of what is said or printed. People can be held
accountable for their words... as well as their videos of aging wrestler sex.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)--
--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
