Gawker shutting down

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gawker

Great news!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

That sex tape was recorded and released without Hogan's consent or knowledge and the courts already ruled that Gawker was wrong for sharing it.  It's a matter of privacy.  Why does terrible journalism deserve any sympathy?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Not that this is relevant to the lawsuit, but I'd love to know what of any journalistic value was lost when Gawker does little besides post clickbait and stuff like this just to get a rise out of people.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

That sex tape was recorded and released without Hogan's consent or knowledge and the courts already ruled that Gawker was wrong for sharing it.  It's a matter of privacy.  Why does terrible journalism deserve any sympathy?

Sounds like the fault lies with the person who filmed him and released the tape. Once the tape is out there, why should others have to ask for "permission" to acknowledge that it exists?

Are you suggesting that journalists who covered Marion Barry doing cocaine on tape should have been sued because he was being filmed without his knowledge or permission?

The difference being here, of course, that sting operations aren't illegal and the act of videotaping Hogan having sex was not a sting operation nor was it authorized to be shared or distributed.  I'd think this is all fairly obvious...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

David, what would you make of cases involving, say, highly revered religious figures, who preach fervently against homosexuality in the most vitriolic ways imaginable with the threat of damnation and the like?  Should people sympathize with them when they're caught in gay prostitution rings or soliciting men on Grindr?  This is obviously a bigger problem in Christian (obviously, conservative) circles and if I recall correctly, you are not a Christian yourself, but I don't think those circumstances are far removed from those of closeted politicians towing their party's line against LGBT people.

The fundamental difference between this and Peter Thiel's case is that Thiel was outed specifically for having arch-libertarian views - views which bear no relevance to his sexuality.  But exposing the sheer hypocrisy of those who pronounce homosexuality to be wrong or immoral and have sizable influence on how society looks upon homosexuality is just that: exposing hypocrisy, not perpetuating the stigma.