Hmm, well, if I thought that was happening, I might agree. But “overly parsing”?

Yes, people are telling this guy not to pass harsh and unfair judgement on other people, other people who are trying to help the victims of this crime who have huge expenses of having done the right thing. He didn’t just say what he felt—he said people who were helping the people who were physically injured were morall…

Look, I certainly don’t want to diminish mental trauma. That said:

I think it’s immensely, immensely and morally wrong how much money we have gotten as opposed to the money, love, kindness that has been given to that little girl.

Do the hinges feel sturdier? I’ve owned every iteration of the DS except the NewDS, and all of them have had hinges that wound up cracking with the exception of the OG and the Lite.

There is also a whole page devoted to Trump’s Moleskine notebook, where she “jots down miscellaneous things I want to accomplish”

 I’m not trying to be a jerk, I promise, but... you took a stand based on a misconception, right? You wanted the joke to be more than what the actual creators wanted it to be, right?

I’ve been waiting for a vaporizer post!

I’ve been waiting for a vaporizer post!

Why would anyone pay for it? It’s not like they would profit if they won the appeal. All it would mean was gawker wouldn’t pay.

Evidence of related precedent, which is how courts rule, because of a principle called stare decisis. It really doesn’t stand to reason. First because, yes, Florida. Second because the venue shopping was obvious. Third because this case has extensive related precedent the judge ignored. Remember how the judge tried to…

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.