Free Speech and Gawker’s So-Called Journalism

Acculturated.com ^ | May 31, 2016 | Kyle Smith

[OddLane]

Here’s a query for all those journalists and professors and media observers who say they’re “deeply troubled” about the “chilling effect” of billionaire Peter Thiel’s attempt to destroy Gawker Media: How would they feel about having their sex tapes published on Gawker’s website for the world to giggle at?

After all, these journalists and other assorted remora are themselves public figures. They relish seeing their names in print and enjoy appearing on television and radio. They seek the largest possible audiences for their musings. That makes them fair game to have their most intimate moments made available to every computer user in the world, right?

That appears to be Gawker’s view of the First Amendment: It’s a license to destroy anybody you don’t like. Gawker brags that it is in the business of “putting truths on the Internet.” Some truths have no journalistic value unless you count mere prurience, though: Terry Bollea, better known by his professional name, Hulk Hogan, may be a celebrity but he didn’t agree to have images of himself having sex blasted out to the world on Gawker’s main site...

[realr]

That was a well-written article.

It sums up the issues people have with Gawker, mainly that they do not practice journalism, instead going after prurient interests that can destroy personal lives.

It is a justification for Peter Thiel, and a good one. Effectively, Gawker deserved the $140 million judgement against it.

In my opionion, many traditional newspapers and main stream news organizations are alarmed by how Thiel brought Gawker to its knees. A private citizen searched for egregious violations of privacy by a news organization, and then provided funds for the legal challenge.

That evens the playing field for many harmed by today’s press. Every week, it seems, some private citizen speaks up and embarrasses a liberal politician. Immediately the media attempts to smirch the private citizen’s reputation. There is no protected right to slander a private person in the press, but the recourse is a (very expensive) civil court action. Usually the media gets away with it.

If there were just a few “Peter Thiels” out there, willing to fund slander lawsuits, it could bring all sorts of main stream media organizations to their knees.

What is missing is a process to research who has been hurt by the press in the past year, and bring these cases to the attention of those who are willing to strike back at the main stream media.

[setha]

It’s not just Denton himself, it also seems to run in his family tree. He was more than happy to help his niece (Kassie Washington) destroy anything not favorable to SJW’s.

[OddLane]

He's a loathsome individual.

The fact that ostensibly conservative NY writers aren't willing to declare him so-because of professional relationships-is troubling.