Search results

Exactly. The "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" one liner is totally idiotic. Reminds me of this joke: Q: What is the difference between the U.S constitution and the Russian constitution? A: In Russia you have freedom of speech. In the U.S you have freedom after speech.

The difference here is that there are SCOUTS cases going back 50+ years that say that it is protected speech for a newspaper to publish classified documents in realization of a newsworthy story on an issue of public concern. But Gawker was hardly publishing the Pentagon Papers. On the other...

Exactly. Gawker Media sites have been toxic little outfits that regularly take a dump on peoples' privacy, and emit nasty outrage peddling on the media landscape. They finally took things too far into the world of illegality, and now are paying the price.

Probably, if Gawker Media does go bankrupt, some of its better sites will return/persist under new ownership.

Well, juries have no ability to create precedent either state or federal cases. They decide facts, not law. But the rulings that the judge made (ie. during the motion to dismiss) will have some credence in other cases. And then there is the scare factor: lawyers for similar publications will...

Doubt it. Or at least if that happens the Ars headline will be "Gawker Media CEO Arrested for Contempt of Court"

Not quite true. Its a court of record, so it has some effect on future judgements. An appellate court ruling will be more binding -- but trial court rulings will be give some deference in other courts when the facts are similar.

Remember, celebrity with large economic value contained in his brand + punitive damages.

Exactly. Gawker was rather open in flaunting Hogan's privacy in this case, and pretty clearly didn't give a shit about the law. To make matters worse about a month after the Hogan case Gawker published editorials condemning other celebrity nude leaks -- meaning they outright knew their actions...

Its this thing called a "review". You may have heard of the concept before. Its when a journalist for a news site tries a product, and writes about her experiences using it.

Remember. The candidate does not select the delegates. They are pledged to the candidate but they are top party wonks. So, they might not actually like Trump. If Trump does not win first ballot, then it will be a bunch of wonks selecting the winner -- not a favourable situation for Trump.

Hmmm..... It seems like StormFront may be more the type of site for you.

Yah. Inequalities of power were totally unheard of during the 1950s golden age. Particularly ones built around race or gender.

He said it was 35 years ago. I'd assume that type of blatant sexism was more common then.

I'm both for Twitter in this case and in favor of gun rights -- but linking the two issues would be a big strategic mistake. Guns are a very polarizing issue and there are a lot of people who will knee jerk oppose anything the NRA says, it would make for as many enemies as friends.

That photo of the Tweet is a photoshop, not a real tweet sent out by the Sanders campaign.

This is actually a fairly mainstream idea. See the Schelling Segregation Model, http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/15 ... Models.pdf Which states that in a situation where there is a preference for the presence of other people similar to oneself, the result will be a feedback loop that...

Yah. I can't parse what that tweet is supposed to be about. On first glance I thought it was a sarcastic jab at Trump supporters, but it seems like he meant it to say something. Just goes to show that Twitter is a bad medium to share complex ideas. He might be criticizing the people who...

Yes. I've never liked their "disruption" style.

The damage caused by mosquito borne diseases is so vast that any reasonably expected level of environmental damage caused by this method would be worth it. The number of deaths due to mosquito borne diseases world-wide is around a million per year. Just that amounts to around 2.5 trillion...