That TPP was done in secret, special interests being the only ones to see the full text and no lawmakers could do anything to it made it worth killing entirely.

You think I'm as bad as Gawker, Mike?

Fine, think that if you want.

You're wrong, but you can think that all day if you want.

If I TRULY was as bad as Political Correctness, Mike, I would have flagged EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that disagrees with me.

I would be trying to find ways to silence the discussion completely.

So, no, Mike.

I think that 1: you are ignoring it. 2: You're wrong for ignoring it.

Have you not seen the problems with what PC Culture has done to colleges and universities across the country? How people are literally saying "I'm not going to perform at Universities because they shut us down thanks to PC."?

FFS, look at what's happened to Milo Yiannopoulos at various universities, particularly DePaul University.

THAT is P.C. culture.

Not what I'm doing.

Learn the difference.

Anyway, I'm done here for now. Think of me what you will, I don't give a rat's ass.

I'll just leave you with a couple of Aaron Swartz quotes.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aaronswart648179.html

http://www.brainyquote.com/qu otes/quotes/a/aaronswart648171.html

Okay, answer me this...

How was Hogan supposed to get any sort of arbitration when it came to his grievances with Gawker and Denton?

How? Tell me that.

Is that not what the courts are for?

As for Gawker, are you THAT freaking blind as to what PC Culture does?

You need to wake up and look up how PC Culture infects communities and websites.

If you hated PC Culture like you say you do, you would be enjoying the fact that PC Culture just got a massive blow dealt to it.

The only tool I see is you and people like you.

Because you would rather enable Gawker to destroy free speech than fight against it.

I'm not doubling down on stupid, you're being an idiot if you think that's the case.

Last I checked, the courts are SUPPOSED to be arbiters between two parties that have a dispute.

Which happened here.

As for me becoming as evil as PC culture.

B.S.

"Evil prevails when good people stand by and do nothing."

The "evil" Thiel did to Gawker is FAR less than what Gawker has done to many more people.

"Businesses have the same rights as people do."

Be VERY careful with THAT argument!

Because with that, you're saying that the Koch Brothers, Donald Trump and other Billionaires have more Speech than you do.

"Only a fool with a small mind would be more afraid of a business with less power and authority over his life than a government that kills and murders its citizens!"

Good to know that you think the Founding Fathers were fools with small minds, especially since it was how Private Businesses were screwing colonialists over (even more so than the British government) that helped push them towards revolution.

OOOPS!

And, Mike, the biggest threat to free speech isn't the government...

It's private individuals and businesses.

Because there's no law stopping them from silencing what you say.

And P.C. culture KNOWS this and does all it can to silence people who "wrongthink".

So, not sorry, you may think of me as a hypocrite, you may not LIKE this, but...

If Gawker had stuck around for too much longer, Free Speech online would have been basically dead.

And the government wouldn't have to lift a finger to do it.

With Gawker being hit like this, making a massive blow against PC Culture and it's effects on silencing free speech, it STOPS what was going to happen.

FFS, look at Reddit, Twitter and Facebook and the controversies all three are facing right now over their censoring people, platforms, and other things that don't jive with the P.C. crowd.

Do you really want a world where your freedom of speech is limited online, not by the government, but by corporations and private entities to the point where there's hardly any place you can say what you want?

Because I sure as hell don't, and that's why I'm glad Gawker is gone.

And before you say "boycott Facebook"

I already do, what good does it do? Facebook is too damn big, you've covered this before! So have others, that not having Facebook access is basically like being cut off from everyone socially.

Make a new Facebook? Google tried that, it didn't work.

Someone may come up with something better later, but right now, what good would it do?

Besides, I have to ask, where did the judge say that Gawker and Denton couldn't post anything online or had to shut his business down or anything regarding Denton/Gawker's ability to communicate online?

So you're saying that the courts should never be used to settle a dispute between people?

Isn't that what they're there for?

Look up Gregory Alan Elliot.

Look him up.

PC Culture damn near destroyed his life and forced him through a criminal trial for B.S. reasons.

PC may not be a crime, but it wants EVERYTHING YOU DO to be a crime.

The fact that you can't see the damage that PC Culture does to freedom of speech is pretty sad, honestly.

Like I said in the previous article, Mike, and you and the rest of everyone here is ignoring this.

The government doesn't need to censor free speech.

Companies do it for them via Political Correctness.

So, yes, Gawker deserves what it gets because THEY'RE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO FREE SPEECH!

"I fear what corporations can do to free speech more than the government." - Aaron Swartz

How about you shut the fuck up?

Considering that Gawker is P.C. bullshit incarnate, they deserve everything they get.

No, I don't care, Gawker was more of a threat to free speech with their P.C. crap than Thiel's case is.

If you don't think so, look at what happened to Mark Kern on Twitter when he made a comment about what happened in Orlando.

He got banned for that statement.

Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners. - George Carlin

Because he and his employer stood to make that much and more by still being employed by the WWE?

Let me ask you this...

Are you okay with sleaze-rag "news" groups being able to post whatever they want, destroying whatever lives they want and not having to face any consequences?

"As opposed to the alternative, where courts get to decide what is and is not 'newsworthy', and therefor allowed to be reported on? Companies like Gawker can be colossal dicks to people and ruin lives with careless 'reporting', but if you don't think the courts, and by extension the government getting to decide what can be and can not be reported on isn't more dangerous to free speech you would seem to have a much higher optimism about how they'd use such a tool than I do."

Yeah. I would rather live in the alternative.

Because, in the end, the government is subject to the will of the people, corporations aren't.

Here's the funny thing...

The government doesn't need to do much to censor people anymore, corporations do it for them.

Yes

As is Cracked.com

I have to say, I can't support Gawker in this case, even with the first amendment implications.

And it's simple.

Gawker is more of a threat to free speech than this court case is.

You see, this court case can be defeated on appeal or only apply in this instance where a journalism outlet goes overboard.

Gawker, on the other hand, is not government backed, is not beholden to the people, and has done real damage to people's lives, careers and reputations.

I'll give some examples, and even though Gawker doesn't do all of these, they would support them.

Do you remember Gregory Alan Elliot? The Canadian who went to trial for being critical/disagreeing with Feminists?

Before the trial ended, he couldn't use the internet at all, and he made his living online, so it absolutely destroyed him financially.

And, yes, he did win, as seen here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/twitter-harassment-trial-verdict-1.3415112

But that wasn't too long ago, that's rather fresh in people's minds.

Not too long ago, a couple of feminists ran to the U.N. to speak about "online harassment" and one of them actually said this...

"Online harassment isn't only what's illegal, but it's also the daily grind of "you suck" or "you're a liar"..."

I don't need to tell you how utterly stupid that is, to view criticism and complaints as harassment. And yet those two tried to get the U.N. to step in and put a stop to it.

Yes, I know, the U.N., by itself, has no power over the U.S., but what about the other member states? What if they followed through with that suggestion? After all, Saudi Arabia is on the Human Right's Council for the U.N.

Also, one of those two ran to the U.S. Congress, has Catherine Clark in her corner, to complain about "online harassment" there.

How about Justine Sacco? One little tweet ruined her life. The person behind ruining her life? Sam "Bring Back Bullying" Biddle.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life .html - And more examples of people Gawker (and the outrage mob in general) have ruined.

How about Matt Taylor, as I've mentioned him before?

My point is, despite the First Amendment implications that this case has for Gawker, I can't bring myself to care like usual, because Gawker is more of a threat to free speech than the government is.

I believe it was the founder of Reddit, Aaron Swartz, who once said "I'm more worried about social media censoring people than the government. The government has to answer to the people, social media doesn't."

No matter how much you want to defend Gawker, no matter how much of an advocate of "if we don't defend free speech for everyone, then no one has it", I can't defend Gawker, not when they've shown to have no problem destroying people.

Also, as Gawker, their lackies and everyone who aligns with them are prone to say when people complain about being censored...

"It's Freedom of Speech, not Freedom from Consequences."

And also, they love to show this comic to everyone...

https://xkcd.com/1357/

The world that Gawker was pushing us towards, one where we would have to police our own thoughts, otherwise we lose everything, is one I don't want to live in.

This court case can be thrown out on appeal with the appellate judges saying that it's a first amendment violation or whatever...

Though poor Eron Gjoni sure didn't get the appellate judges to rule on the 1st Amendment when his right to speak was taken away for over 18 months by the courts when his ex used the court system to shut him up. Though one of the Appellate Judges did say that the ruling was "bothering" in its 1st Amendment implications.

I'm just going to flat out state this... Between Sacco, Taylor, Thiel and Hogan, who wouldn't Gawker go after? Who was safe from them? You have to realize, Mike, that eventually they would have gone after you, one of your employees, one of your friends, etc. just to cause outrage. They wouldn't have stopped until they were forced to.

Anyway, that's my two cents on it.

Apparently he was still employed by the WWE and made money anytime someone downloaded one of his matches.

I just have to ask, does free speech mean "freedom from consequences"?

There is two things Gawker could have done to avoid getting sued.

1: Just post the still images as was suggested
2: Not leak out key lines in the tape that ruined Hogan's career.

Those two things would have kept the lawsuit from happening.

Pretty simple.

Oh, and ignoring a judge's order to take down the video, that was pretty bad, especially when they put up a headline that went "Judge Orders us to take down the sex tape, but we won't"

You DON'T thumb your nose at the Judicial Branch of the government like that.