Gawker.com go bye-bye

For me, the ends don't justify the means, the way you seem to be suggesting. That is a dangerous way to go through life. Nobody is arguing with you about those sites having done some shitty thing. Pointing those things out--in even the most impassioned way you can --is an appeal to emotion. I get it. But it doesn't invalidate the fact that the way that particular lawsuit went down was the WRONG way to deal with the shittiness of Denton et al. And it sets the kinds of dangerous precedents we always eventually pay for.

You blow off the idea that a crappy state law that runs roughshod over the the first amendment was used by a very rich guy with a vendetta to accomplish the ends he wanted (destroy those sites) -- because in this case you found the people and sites he went after detestable (with good reason; again no one is suggesting otherwise). Who cares how someone accomplished it? They shut down those assholes.

Any problems I point out about the way it was done. ... Oh, "Well that is a tort reform problem."

It's actually not a tort reform issue. Rights like those guaranteed by the first amendment aren't supposed to be subject to the whims of public sentiment and the types of civil laws that stem from the changing winds of that sentiment. Free speech and freedom of the press pertain to universal civil rights, which are what make us free people. I'd point out that those rights are meaningless unless you are willing to defend even the kind of speech or publication you don't like. I'd argue that it's not a simple tort issue; it's a civil liberties issue, which is a much bigger deal to me.

Putting that aside, though, I just disagree with you. Not about Gawker having done some shitty things that have psychically hurt various people. When it comes to our civil liberties, I just find it dangerous when people are willing to suspend those rights when it comes to the people they don't like -- thinking that it ends there. Because it NEVER ends there. Our history is filled with examples. When the lines get blurred (as you are willing to allow because the ends justified the means in this case) it's how you end up with, for example, a Joseph McCarthy terrorizing people -- just to pick an example.

I also think that those kinds of backward, indirect ways of shutting down hateful speech or publication are never the best or most effective way, even if they are the most expedient. I believe that the best way to deal with ideas you disagree with isn't to just shout the person down by any means necessary. It's to CHALLENGE the person and use reason about why what they do (or have to say) is wrong.

 

Yes, it is speech. If he wanted to argue that they obtained the tapes illegally or that they stole them or that they did anything illegal in obtaining those tapes -- or whatever creates that nebulous line of "private" for you -- he should have. In fact, he never put the guy who made the tapes onto the stand and never brought anything resembling an action in those terms -- either criminally or civilly.

What he did was use a shit state civil law that makes it illegal to embarrass someone. The law itself is an abomination (and should be unconstitutional). It opens the door for any public figure -- say a politician -- to try to stifle things they don't want anyone to see. Just call it an "invasion of privacy" and say it embarrassed you.

You don't get to decide what is OK to publish -- what is private or off limits and what isn't. You draw the line at a sex tape that Hulk Hogan says he found embarrassing. It is private (forget that he is a public figure and all that). I agree with you that it is the kind of thing that appeals to the worst in people, if you want to make that argument. It is why I never watched the tape, never would and never look at it when a famous person finds themselves with a tape like that getting out or some photos they don't want out there.

That said, just realize that when you decide where that line is (with your private, not speech distinction), you open the door for the next person to decide where they want their lines (and exceptions) to be. It's the kind of emotional appeal that fascists and demagogues use to take their shortcuts with our civil liberties. There are A LOT of people out there without your sensibilities. When you decide that the ends justify the means, if the next guy decides that he wants to deny say muslims (or anyone else) some basic civil liberty, you should know that he detests them and their behavior just as much as you detested Nick Denton and his behavior. ... and the ends justify the means for him, too -- just as it did for you when it had to do with Gawker.

I find that dangerous. We have those basic rights in place to protect all of us, and I believe you need to be pretty strident about defending those rights (obviously) for them to actually have any teeth.

 

I should have said this. ... The CONTENT isn't what makes something speech or information or publishable material. You wouldn't care half as much about the shitty things that Gawker has done if we weren't talking about their use of a free press, and the things they chose to publish. You care precisely because it is actual speech (or in their case publication) -- and they very often crossed the line into speech / publication that you found offensive.

That is why I scratched my head a bit when you tried to qualify this as NOT being speech, or in this case really, a free press issue (which is how I have seen it).

Take away the content. And think about what we are talking about. What they did was disseminate something (information) via a website (i.e publication). When you say, well, "that isn't speech," all I can think is that you find the actual publication so offensive that you want to create an exception to it being protected by freedom of the press. So you are denying it is even what it is. Because this is so inarguably a free press / free speech issue to me that I honestly can't see why you'd think I'd have to twist myself into a pretzel to see that so clearly.

If you wanted to argue there should be exceptions to freedom of speech or freedom of the press, it would be one thing (I'd still largely disagree). I still default to the fact that when you start making those exceptions (for the obvious scumbags), where your line is (about what is offensive or what is valuable information) and where the next guy's line is are going to be two different places. And then you may as well not have the right. That is why I am so strident in conversations like this. Not because I think that the people at Gawker were a bunch of good fellas.