GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[evil_ash_xero]

that one's fake tbh

Which one? The Marxism one?

[evil_ash_xero]

In lighter news...

I watched that earlier. That lawyer really pissed me off.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Well if that didn't cheer you up, this will. Hopefully, Gawker is finished and we can all experience a future where Jezebel doesn't exist.

[BIL]

oh lawd, the ignominy of Kotaku being brought down by a big white caulk! :O

[evil_ash_xero]

man, everything is fake! a world of lies!

[BIL]

Hey you naughty devil, that one is fake too! :O

Still funny (and tragic) though! Here's a mostly-real one. ;3

Spoiler

Psycho harasser Randi Harper tweeted first

[evil_ash_xero]

You know, so many of the SJW brigade, are just...awful people. It's weird how no on pays attention to this fact, in the media. It wouldn't take long to find out.

Also, this Gawker thing has made my day. Makes up for "The Internet Ruined My Life".

And Mundane Matt was swatted. I'm sure NO ONE in the MSM will point that out. But we'll have fucking TV episodes about people tweeting nasty shit to Wu.

[BIL]

More like the internet gives me two grand a month to sit on my ass and tweet all day. :^)

I pretty much only follow would-be Stalinist Johnny Flynt. Mainly out of morbid fascination. The gaming that is my hobby is future-immune; insulated from the fickle present, and most definitely from fraudster cunts like him. The industry could disintegrate tomorrow, dead stop, and I'd still have more goodness than time to enjoy it all.

But Flynt is just an irresistibly ghastly study of someone with zero ability or even work ethic worming their way into an industry. Ayano Koshiro drove herself to tears ensuring Bare Knuckle II would meet her and the rest of Ancient's ambitions. John let his ailing dog freeze to death outside then victim-blamed it for not using the doggy flap in order to boost his pity profile. A year and a half on... no sight of Revolution 60's PC port, the phone version has disappeared, and John now wants millions to fund his VR project. Plus a tech industry "harassment prevention" gig. He's quite something.

[Durandal]

Our press freedom to publish sex tapes of someone's private life is being attacked!

[BIL]

I'm loving those. Finest salty goods. It's definitely patronising with a blend of desperation, but are those notes of disingenuous or willfully moronic I detect in the finish?

He'd have been better served with "WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" except we're talking about consenting adults shaggin' it up on tape! Darn!

And on that tangent

[Skykid]

$115 million, The penalty price for shit journalism.

[BIL]

sharing of condolences





And the cruelest blow (geddit?!) of all...

Spoiler

^ NO REFUGE

[evil_ash_xero]

[iconoclast]

I still love that it was Hulk Hogan of all people who brought down Gawker, one of the top Internet heels. Life imitates art?

[Illyrian]

Hulkamania running wild in 2016.

[Opus131]

Hulkamania running wild in current year.

[Mischief Maker]

So we fight against that encroaching vapidity with Dead or Alive Xtreme Volleyball 3?

It is the principle of the thing that counts.

Precisely: the point is no censorship at all.

sharing of condolences

I dislike Gawker as much as the next person but can't help seeing the irony here.

The first amendment is sancrosanct... except when it applies to someone I don't like.

[BIL]

Does it cover screaming "fire!" in a packed theatre? Serious question, I'm not American and know little of the country's laws.

It seems to me that a news site published footage of a sex act in private between consenting adults, and have been sued. Their defense seems to hinge on the sex tape being in the public interest. Looks less a freedom of speech issue than an invasion of privacy one. There was also talk from the defense of Hogan's sex life being fair game due to his braggadocio on the matter in public, an unnerving precedent imo.

I don't hate Gawker (see above, I just like observing these characters) but I do love the spine crushing cringe watching this guy get grilled on the stand. ^__^ (I disagree with him btw, the discovery of a sex tape featuring a four year-old child most definitely would be newsworthy, though not for the voyeuristic reasons that are Gawker's stock and trade).

[Giest118]

Does it cover screaming "fire!" in a packed theatre? Serious question, I'm not American and know little of the country's laws.

It guarantees is that the government can't arrest you for your opinions. Shouting "fire" in a packed theater is not the expression of an opinion, so it's not covered.

I don't know for sure whether it extends to private businesses also needing to respect freedom of speech, but I don't think it does; we just tend to prefer it when web sites like Youtube and Twitter don't censor people.

[BIL]

It guarantees is that the government can't arrest you for your opinions. Shouting "fire" in a packed theater is not the expression of an opinion, so it's not covered.

Oh no, of course not - but this does suggest there are certain situations where the first amendment's provisions are not applicable. If the above scenario involves assholes causing stampedes for kicks, Gawker would seem to have been judged as the creeper in the bushes outside your bedroom filming you and wifey's mad shagging session. Or at least the muckraker who publishes the footage on his site for sweet sweet clicks.

[Obscura]

Mischief Maker is just making himself look like an idiot by pretending not to notice the difference between things that people intentionally put out for consumption vs. a private tape that's stolen by someone.

[BIL]

I feel for the defense in their closing argument. :[ It's like the Spinal Tap scene where the band argue for the artistic merit of Smell The Glove's label-rejected sleeve art. Except those guys had a workable premise.

"It could have been so much more graphic if they'd wanted it to be, you guys! The article was really about illustrating and exploring the modern context of spying on people having sex in America! Also, the slut was asking for it and clearly enjoyed it anyway."

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

I dislike Gawker as much as the next person but can't help seeing the irony here.

The first amendment is sancrosanct... except when it applies to someone I don't like.

If the verdict is overturned - at least Jlaw's nudz will get national publication. That's something to look forward to.

[Mischief Maker]

Does it cover screaming "fire!" in a packed theatre? Serious question, I'm not American and know little of the country's laws.

Well most Americans don't know that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" quote comes from the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in which Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes used that hypothetical example as an excuse to set aside the right to free speech when prosecuting people for the crime of distributing leaflets protesting the World War I draft.

There's a reason I'm a free speech absolutist.

(Oh there goes that silly Mischief Maker all, "Muh Supreme Court" again!)

Mischief Maker is just making himself look like an idiot by pretending not to notice the difference between things that people intentionally put out for consumption vs. a private tape that's stolen by someone.

It's true, I was too distracted by the fact that one of them is an independent decision made by a private company, the other is a government sanctioned penalizing of online press that could potentially set an ugly precedent to justify future legislation against net neutrality. Say, didn't future president Trump say he wanted to rewrite the libel laws?

I'm such an idiot!

[BIL]

There's a reason I'm a free speech absolutist.

How do you feel about dying in a stampede prank, or being secretly recorded naked in bed for the express purpose of strangers examining your shaved balls and nice pink arse?

I'm not convinced this is a free speech issue. Gawker's defense certainly attempted to cultivate the notion it was, but as the prosecution put it in their rebuttal - those rights have always coexisted in balance with others, here the reasonable expectation of privacy.

Collaring a gossip site for uploading covert footage of people fucking in their bed isn't quite the same as sending journalists to gulag for criticising generalissimo's draft policies. I don't think it's even on the same continuum. Maybe I'm being overly generous?

[Mischief Maker]

How do you feel about dying in a stampede prank,

You'd think after all these years on the internet I'd have learned by now not to bother explaining contrary opinions. They're never gonna bother reading it, anyway.

[BIL]

Ouch that hurt! No, I read your post. I just want to know how absolute you really are. If you're okay with getting prankingly crushed to death, or even having your shaved balls covertly exposed, in the defense of freedom of speech - we'll indeed have to chalk this one up to ideological differences.

Because for the fourth time: I don't believe this ruling compromises the doctrine of free speech, not even theoretically. That's an appeal to emotion Gawker's defense tried and failed.

[quash]

Gawker's defense literally boiled down to the holocaust and the n-word. Fuck them and their gonzo style journalism forever.

[Skykid]

Hey, rag on gawker for poor journalism - their crime is more sensationalism and barrel scraping material - but there's nothing wrong with gonzo journalism intrinsically. Although I don't agree with a complete lack of objectivity, gonzo journalism is responsible for some of the more interesting and inspired articles in the field. First-person narratives always appeal to me when the subject is interesting and the article well-written, two components that escape Gawker entirely. They don't care for talent.

Blame the publication basically, but not the form.

[BIL]

Good to see John's gained a whole new platform post-TIRML.



Dead. Skin. Mask. *shudder*