Eh, I always hold out hope. My perennial inability to let things drop is a failing. But if I do engage again later, it’s not because you’re not right.

Incidentally, appeals don’t go to a jury, they go to judges. The case should have been dismissed, as Gawker asked for. As a matter of law, the finding was incorrect, as evidenced by all previous precedent. I’m very certain an appeals court would have corrected those errors of law.

“We both know outing someone is bullying, and that it requires an imbalance of power. The definition is not being disputed.” Actually, we don’t! Nice try, though. Nothing quite like “I’m going to expressly say you think this, even though it’s abundantly clear that’s a lie” as an argument tactic.

No, I haven’t ignored anything. Seriously, your entire argument is, as far as I can see, Gawker did wrong (arguable assertion), therefore what Thiel did was right, with a corrollary that you don’t like Thiel, but that doesn’t matter, and the implication that Gawker deserved the outcome because of other actions.

Now, I asked several times for a definition. You still haven’t provided one. Outing someone is often, or even usually, bullying. But when the word doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply.

No, it 100% hasn’t. You are wrong. The invasion of privacy is the punishable part. Not the speech. IT’s content neutral, except in that if you invaded, you get punished, and if you spread that invasion, you get punished worse, and you’re responsible for consequences.

Doing something someone does not like is not bullying. Words mean things.

Your argument as posted here as though it’s a complete summary, simply does not make sense. The existence of defamation law is, in the US (with VERY narrow exceptions), predicated on the statements being false. The danger here is that this sets a precedent for true things being things you can be sued for. It sure as…

I challenged you on your assertion that they bullied, because as far as I can see Gawker definitionally did not bully Thiel. He has more power than they do. They cannot bully him, because bullying requires a power differential (real or perceived), and it’s quite clear there was no real differential, and I cannot take…

If I read the thread correctly, you brought it up because you were pointing out that the harm he suffered was relevant, and others were saying it wasn’t, and so you brought up defamation, where it is relevant.

You’re the one who set up the dichotomy:

But did does not, however. Because since defamation is not relevant to this case, the notion of the harm to an individual is, likewise, not relevant here. But I’ll get to the rest of the meat of that subsequently. This was absolutely a chilling case. First amendment lawyers, even ones that hate gawker, would agree:

You’re assuming correctly. Also maybe you edited the first one, ‘cause it originally only said “whoosh”? We may strongly disagree on several of these points, but I suspect we may be able to agree that Kinja (at the very least, “at times”) sucks.

I assume you’re implying some point went over my head. Kinja’s weird, so I’m not sure if that’s your reply to the long post or the short one. If it’s the short one, I would say that what you’re missing is that defamation is different than the Bollea case—the analogy doesn’t hold. The harm to an individual is factored…

It apparently is for you, because truth is an absolute defense for defamation. Defamation is irrelevant in the Gawker case.

The alternative to what? The alternative to immorally abusing both the court system and juror ignorance? You’re setting up a dichotomy between that and allowing people to say true things?

Legal =/= moral. No one has raised a compelling moral argument justifying his actions. he certainly abused the principle of the legal system and juror ignorance in order to get an outcome he knew was not actually appropriate under the law, but that would be too ruinous to fight.

Well, it is NOW...the original troll reply was just a nigh - incoherent rant about an unrelated topic, with a complaint and invective about how everyone who writes for the site should be murdered and/or jobless (Or something else horrible, can’t recall the specifics) because they didnt cover a story he wanted them to…

Are we going with spam? I went with spam.

I actually talked to someone the other day who blamed THE MEDIA for shit like this, saying that if only it wasn’t REPORTED, there would be less unrest. The look on his face when I not only destroyed his “argument” but also defended that terrible awful no good word “privilege” in the process of demonstrating his…