Damn... Rich people are fucking evil.

Fuck this documentary
Had so many fights with my roommate over it
He always listen to these types of things

>>87660258
>fuck this documentary

Fuck literal free speech? Fuck freedom of the press? Okay literal nazi.

File: 15052544706191732549779.jpg (161KB, 1140x700px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1140x700px

>>87660639
Did someone say Nazi?

>>87660116

>publicly post a video of a man having sex in private and call it news
>out a man before he can talk to his family about his sexuality
>act surprised when they both rape you in court and take you for millions

Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to invade peoples personal lives for profit.

This documentary implies that the distinction between Hulk Hogan and the real guy (Terry Bolea?) is crazy, but it completely made sense to me.

>>87661034
Yes, actually, freedom of the press literally means you can literally print whatever you want.

>>87661176

It doesn't however divorce you from the consequences.

>>87661359
Yes it does

I'll get upset when they hit a real journalistic outlet.

>>87661176
very good HOWEVER

you can plant a camera in someone's hotel room, illegally surveil them and then post it online.

>>87661375
No it doesn't.

>>87661176
weak b8 or meta b8?

File: gawker.jpg (88KB, 500x684px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x684px

>>87661375
No.

If you post some allegations of rape and abuse about a person which is based on nothing and no source, you are in fact eligible to be prosecuted for defamation

>>87660639
ironically i bet losers like you think charlottesville should be banned from happening

>>87661584
You mean a bunch of snowflakes righting each other on the street? Yeah, it shouldn't happen. Also you can never convince that the alt-right are right about anything. They are just a cult.

>>87661624
How old are you, babby boy?

>>87661665
old enough to troll you.

It's obvious bait.

>>87661517
>>87661531
The fact that our government is corrupt doesn't mean freedom of speech doesn't protect any and all speech. It simply means our government ignores that right.

>>87661665
Older than you.

>>87661692
>he thinks trolling is still a thing
>>87661695
Answer daddy, babby boy.

>>87660116
Is this the movie that tries to paint Gawker as some kind of victim? It's pure sleeze and profited off exploiting others.

i guess the alternate title "utlra butthurt" didnt make it

>>87660116
>wh*te people are fucking evil

FTFY

>>87660639
No fuck blogs misrepresenting themselves as heroic journalists. They fuckers thought that since hulk hogan said the N-word they could do whatever they wanted to him.

Turns out they were wrong. We don't want blogs planting cameras in our hotel rooms, just like we don't want CNN blackmailing citizens.

Libs need to understand that eventually these tactics will be used against you. We don't want anyone having this power.

>>87661693
so hate speech is allright?

>>87661726
I told you I'm older than you. If you are going to try to prove some dumb point they just go ahead say it. So I can prove you wrong.

>>87661794
Just admit you were born in the 90s, babby boy.

>>87661783
duh

>>87661783
Hate speech isn't even a real thing. What people seem to believe constitutes hate speech is 100% alright.

>>87661783
I'm not sure what "hate speech" means, but assuming "hate" in this context doesn't mean "the opposite of", then yes.

>>87661831
I was born in the 80's. Let's pretend I was born in the 90's. What point do you think your are trying to make?

>>87661176
> What are libel laws?

>>87661783
There's no such thing as hate speech. The idea that there is basically amounts to thoughtcrime.
>>87661893
>I was born in the 80's
Wrong. You were born in the 90s. That's why your brain doesn't work.

>>87661777
That's a problem with radicals. They never think their tactics can be used against them.

>>87661894
Government corruption

>>87661853
>>87661888
People on the internet don't really know what censorship means. They understand that censorship has a specific meaning and only the govt. by definition can censor you.

>>87661929
>Wrong. You were born in the 90s. That's why your brain doesn't work.

Go on how does my brain not work? You going to pretend that people 20 something larping as nazis actually care about anything other than being edgy?

>>87661993
Let's start with how you format your posts, reddit.

>>87662057
>Let's start with how you format your posts, reddit.

You mean proper grammar.

>>87662082
No, I mean the unnecessary empty line between the reply link or quote and your reply. Did you put it there because you're from reddit or did you put it there because you're learning disabled? Those are your only options. Choose carefully.

>>87661783
hate speech does not exist

>>87660639
Libel, slander
Also you have to be super in the wrong to lose with a team of lawyers vs hulk hogan and his

>>87662190
> Did you put it there because you're from Reddit or did you put it there because you're learning disabled?

I'm not the one who doesn't understand grade school grammer.

>The Mechanics of Style. Spacing (4.01). Regarding punctuation in manuscript drafts, APA suggests using two spaces after periods ending sentences to aid readability.

>>87660116
Did it cover the part where Gawker thought a sex tape featuring a four year old was news? Or when they used MUH SIX GORILLION as a court defence?

>>87662353
You were supposed to choose one of the options I gave you. Failure to do so indicates a learning disability. Quoting an irrelevant section from a style manual which doesn't even refer to what I'm calling you out on is further proof of this assertion. Go home.

>>87662494
>You were supposed to choose one of the options I gave you.

People who avoid question don't get to make the rules. Answer my question first. Then I will answer yours. After all, you are the baby boy here newfag.

>>87661531
GAWKED

>>87660116
Yes... those very same rich people who would breach someone's privacy for hits then gloat about it as if they're above the law are fucking evil

>wealthy gawker shits on people
>someone richer than gawker shits on them

File: DEqxTkUVYAA0ifm.jpg (5KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 640x360px

>>87660639
>freedom of the press
>Gawker editor literally said in court that publishing a sex tape of a 4-year-old child is in the public interest

>>87662792
It's like poetry, it rhymes

>>87662602
>People who avoid question don't get to make the rules.
Literal retards who don't know how to format their posts like normal adults don't get to decide who makes the rules. That's why people are paid to look after you in group homes.
>Answer my question first. Then I will answer yours.
I already answered your question, dunce. It doesn't matter now anyway. I've evaluated your condition and diagnosed it.

lol libcucks are STILL butt hurt about this. Can you imagine a more pussy crybaby club for the last year since Trump won. Libcucks GIVE UP

>>87662822
>Literal retards who don't know how to format their posts like normal adults

That is you.

>I already answered your question

No, you didn't you dumb retard.

>>87662860
>That is you.
Oh, look. The "no u" reply everyone expected from the retard.
>No, you didn't you dumb retard.
Then you need to go look up the definition of the word "question" because you asked one and I answered it. inb4 you stall some more like the spastic you are.

File: hulk hogan.jpg (173KB, 1024x724px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1024x724px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pr8S44o6N4&feature=youtu.be&t=261

>“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” Hogan attorney Douglas E. Mirell asked.
>“If they were a child,” Daulerio replied.
>“Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.
>“Four.”

>You were joking about child pornography, were you not?
>You already heard the tape...I was sarcastic.

Do you know "implied sarcasm" isn't a legal defense when you swore an oath to tell the truth? Do you know what perjury is?

>>87663238
that faggot fuck deserves to be unemployed for the rest of his life

>>87660116
wtf i love trump now

This was a really bad documentary. It's not like Peter Thiel's money made evidence appear out of nowhere to prove Gawker guilty. And then the entire movie switches to some totally different story that I skipped through. Really bad stuff.

>make enemy of genius billionaire
>comes back to bite you in the ass years later when he takes glorious vengeance through the proxy of a wrestler

They deserved it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-avakrRUaU
>She used the word journalism and then she said 'everyone knows not everything is true.' Most journalists at least try for the truth.
>I think there's a shifting definition of what is public and what is private space for everyone... No one has the reasonable expectation of walking down the street and not have what they're doing be noticed by someone.
>Well that's just terrible.

>>87663278
This is what happens when your job consists entirely of "starting shit on the internet." When it's time to act like an adult, he automatically goes back to what he knows: getting into heated arguments and making flippant remarks. I don't know why his lawyer wasn't jumping on him saying "Sssshhh! Shhhh! Ssshhhh! This isn't Twitter! Don't joke about child porn in the court of law!"

File: 1504850209115.png (29KB, 813x577px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 813x577px

>>87660639
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pr8S44o6N

>Freedom of the press

>>87660639
How do you feel about The Daily Stormer being purged from the internet?

>>87660116

Is it worth watching at all for entertainment purposes or will it just annoy me?

>>87663701
It wasn't.

>>87663090
> You going to pretend that people 20 something larping as nazis actually care about anything other than being edgy?

You didn't answer.

>Let's pretend I was born in the 90's. What point do you think your are trying to make?

You didn't answer. So what is your response going to be now cuck?

>out a billionaire against his wishes
>he ends up bankrolling a lawsuit against you and sees you sued into oblivion

Hulk is an asshole, no question, but Gawker was always a glorified and grossly biased blog. I can understand how some might think this is an assault on the first amendment since Gawker has presented themselves as a news agency, when convenient, but these fucking morons brought it on themselves.

>>87663756
>cuck
Post a picture of your cheetos stained shirt, newfag.

>>87660258
(((roommate)))
So your butt buddy?

>>87663756
>You didn't answer.
Because your question was rhetorical, dunce.
>>Let's pretend I was born in the 90's. What point do you think your are trying to make?
"That's why your brain doesn't work."
How fucking stupid you must be to think this was your coup de grâce. Stupid faggot.

I dropped it after like 15 minutes. Stupid title.

>>87660639
>>87661176
>>87661375
>>87661624
>>87661693
>>87663739


Hey retard.


Defend this shit:
>>87663638
>>87663238


Go on. Fucking do it.

File: 1503604996617.jpg (7KB, 210x230px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 210x230px

Why do leftists think that the media is completely and totally immune to all laws and criticism?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that media super-conglomerates are usually leftist institutions, would it?

>>87664034
iunno why you tagged me in that i just said stormer's not banned from the internet. Fuck gawker and other gossip blogs.

>>87664034
I couldn't give the slightest shit about Gawker or anything they said or did. I care about our government being corrupt and trampling on people's rights.

>>87664130
All rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. How do you think California and New York get away with their oppressive gun laws?

The only argument is determining what is reasonable. Slander and libel are reasonable restrictions to the first amendment.

>>87664175
>reasonable restrictions to the first amendment

No such thing

>>87663902
Still can't answer a simple question. This is why you people are part of a cult.

>>87664204
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

>>87664307
Government-recognized exceptions exist, but they aren't actual exceptions nor are they reasonable.

>>87664130
Why the fuck are you posting in this thread? Because it's about this dumbassed documentary and the Gawker fiasco it lies about. This discussion is about Gawker, not about your stupid-ass personal soapboxing subject of the day.

Defend that shit or get the FUCK out, because that is what you're arguing for right now. This court case has NOTHING to do with the government except insofar as civil proceedings conducted within the court system.

>>87664115
Sorry I just wanted to get his attention.

>>87664341
>Little nobody thinks his opinion matters more than the supreme court

Lol!

I never saw that whole thing as a free speech issue. They literally humiliated the man publically, made fun of him in various ways while parading a voyeuristic video of him having sex in private. If that doesn't give someone reason to sue then I don't know what does.

>>87664363
>being forced by the government to pay a huge fine has nothing to do with the government except civil proceedings

Yeah, sure

>>87664371
It has nothing to do with my opinion.

>>87660116
http://resguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/implied-facepalm.png

>>87664130
No one's rights were "trampled."

Gawker was ordered not to publish the tape: they did it, anyway.

If you can't even follow the orders of a judge, then expect repercussions.

You're not allowed to publish anything you want, y'know, Libel, for example, isn't protected.

>thought I was going to watch something about hogans trial
>turns out it was actually about some gay vendetta against the people that outed him to the public and how gawker was really wanted everyone to believe they were the good guys

>>87664487
>No one's rights were "trampled."
>You're not allowed to publish anything you want

Nice contradiction

>>87661176
Since no one answered this correctly, freedom of speech only protects you from the government. If your speech impacts someone else's life, than you CAN be sued.

File: 1463541453006.png (21KB, 654x627px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 654x627px

>>87664439
>forced by the government

It was a civil case that was LOST, LOST, regarding damages and value you fucking moron, all of it was proved in court with copious evidence and it's not some dumb asshole signing a law or something it was proven that these damages were done maliciously and with disregard to firmly established public libel malpractice.

You choose not to even try to defend sneaking into someone's home, filming them having sex, and then publishing it because you know it's indefensible. You don't care about the law. You're evil. Thank god he lost and thank god your bullshit flimsy excuses didn't hold up in civil (CIVIL!) court.

Gawker was issued a court order to remove the content. They wrote an article saying no and refused to remove the content. They then faced the consequences. Its pretty simple.

>>87664549
>I can't post child porn in my newspaper? Wtf? I thought this was America!

File: fagillionaire.jpg (586KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 1024x684px

>>87660639
>out a gay billionaire
>act surprised by him funding lawsuits against you further down along the line
>later argue in court that publishing any and all celebrity sex videos is fine as long as all the participants are over four years old

Gawker deserved to burn for it's sheer fucking indignant stupidity

>>87662190
People have been doing that here since before reddit existed

>>87660116
I still can't understand what they're getting at. It's bad because Hulk Hogan didn't fund his own case? He was still in the right. They also had no right to out a guy as gay when it's none of their fucking business. Shit like this isn't news, and it was good that they were put in their place. But instead of learning a lesson they're trying to turn it into more rhetoric and propaganda. The U.S. is turning into a lost cause.

>>87660639
I really hope this is irony.

>>87661123
>documentary implies that the distinction between Hulk Hogan and the real guy (Terry Bolea?) is crazy
Wait, really? Hulk Hogan is a character and Terry Bolea is an actor, it's not really a difficult concept. Does Gawker also want to have Joe Pesci charged for the heinous murder of Billy Batts?

>>87664549
The Hulkster was filmed without his consent and Gawker wanted to publish the tape as clickbait. He wanted to stop them because he felt his right to privacy had been violated. Do you think it's okay for an individual's right to be violated by a corporation because they think it will be profitable?

>>87666365
It's either someone who's acting like an ass to ruse you. Or it's a liberal sheep grasping at straws. Either way, don't waste your time trying to explain it to them.