Media

Bullies and Hypocrites: Gawker Deserves This New Level of Hate

Stop reading the site.

|

Smash
Dreamstime

The latest wrinkle in the Conde Nast gay escort controversy is that Gawker publisher Nick Denton has taken down the salacious story—over the furious protests of many Gawker editors. The (recently unionized) writing staff of the company released the following statement in response:

Our union drive has expressed at every stage of the process that one of our core goals is to protect the editorial independence of Gawker Media sites from the influence of business-side concerns. Today's unprecedented breach of the firewall, in which business executives deleted an editorial post over the objections of the entire executive editorial staff, demonstrated exactly why we seek greater protection. Our opinions on the post are not unanimous but we are united in objecting to editorial decisions being made by a majority of non-editorial managers. Disagreements about editorial judgment are matters to be resolved by editorial employees. We condemn the takedown in the strongest possible terms.

Management voted either 4-2 or 5-1 to yank the story after it was published, according to Executive Editor John Cook, who claimed on Twitter that "I and my colleagues argued as strenuously against [taking down the story] as we could, and we lost."

Such judgment does not reflect well on Gawker's editorial team. It's the near-unanimous opinion of other journalists, some former Gawker employees, and Gawker's own commenters that the story should never have been published in the first place.

I could not agree more. There was no legitimate reason for Gawker writer Jordan Sargent to aid a lunatic conspiracy theorist's quest to blackmail a relatively obscure man, presumably shattering that man's family in the process. Reasonable people can disagree about whether politicians like Anthony Weiner and anti-gay religious hypocrites deserve to have their private moral failings brought to light (I personally lean toward respecting people's privacy, even when they are monsters), but Gawker's actions in this case served no good purpose.

That's not to say that reporters should be excessively deferential to their subjects' sensibilities. Rolling Stone's failure in the University of Virginia rape story was partially born of its desire not to press its source for uncomfortable truths. But in a very real sense, Gawker did a similar thing here. Sargent respected the privacy of the escort—a manifestly untrustworthy conspiracy theorist—but not the person whose life he was about to destroy. In some sense, Sabrina Rubin Erdely dedicated herself to telling a false story of enormous consequence. Sargent dedicated himself to telling a true story of almost no consequence. In doing so, both made horrible mistakes.

There is a temptation to defend what Gawker did as some kind of exercise in radical free speech. According to Gawker's own editorial guidelines, there are only two things that matter when deciding to publish a story: is it true, and is it interesting? Gawker Editor in Chief Max Read defended the story thus: "given the chance gawker will always report on married c-suite executives of major media companies fucking around on their wives."

It would be easier to believe that this was an articulation of some clear principle if Gawker writers weren't such hypocrites. Many have derided the exact same kind of radical, offensive free speech when other platforms for expression—Reddit, for example—have allowed similarly extreme transgressions. Writers at Gawker and Gawker affiliate cites have criticized the publication of celebrity's leaked nude photos. They have assailed Charles Johnson for doxing uncooperative story subjects. On Twitter, the beloved Ken White of Popehat described the double standard in castigating terms:

It's in line with "humiliate Incorrect people while decrying humiliation of Correct people."

It's in line with "suck up to, and reward, evil if it casts someone Incorrect in a bad light."

It's in line with "mouth platitudes about being tolerant and supportive of gays while outing ones of whom we disapprove."

It's in line with "posture about objectification of women while engaging in appearance-shaming, revenge porn, and cheesecake"

When Cook suggested that the story was solidly in line with "what Gawker has asked its writers to do for years," White responded: "That's true. That's the problem."

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple thinks it's possible that Gawker could be sued over this story:

A plaintiff seeking damages for what's known as "publication of private facts" needs to fulfill a four-part test:

• "The disclosure of facts must be public." That's an easy one, given that Gawker's piece is out there.
• "The fact or facts disclosed must be private, and not generally known." Our Nexis search confirmed as much.
• "Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Publication of the private facts in question must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities." Twitter could well assist in making this case.
• "The facts disclosed must not be newsworthy." Always a subjective consideration, yet the Erik Wemple Blog feels no more enlightened about Condé Nast than it did previously. It does know that somewhere out there is an escort who tries to leverage his work for political assistance. Wow.

All well and good. But the market offers us a more immediate method of punishing Gawker for its hypocritical, bullying immaturity—one that people as different as Christina Hoff Sommers and Lena Dunham can get behind: stop reading the site.

NEXT: Constitutional constraints on judicial power to consider cases

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sorry Robby, but I’m really not feeling my A-game tonight.

    Please insert your own joke about how you’re too deferential to SJWs/liberals/progressives, and post it in the comments below.

    ‘ppreciate’cha.

    1. I could not agree

      SEE! COSMO ROBBY!

      1. Down below, Ken wins this round of, “Be the first to accuse Robby non-sarcastically of being Weigel, liberal, or an SJW”.

    2. I’m clearly trying to get invited to the Lena Dunham social justice happy hour.

      1. Is it possible at this happy hour to drink enough to make Lena Dunham attractive?

        Take THAT, women who don’t want to be objectified!

        1. No. That amount of alcohol does not exist in this galaxy.

          1. Not even in that one nebula that smells of raspberries?

        2. Not even Yeltsin could get *that* drunk.

            1. Now that’s a fuckin president

            2. I’d like to see Yeltsen and that Toronto Mayor hang out.

              1. Lol, I was just about to mention good ol Rob when you beat me to it.

  2. To stop reading it I would have to start reading it.

  3. I disagree. The CFO of Conde Nast is a sufficiently public person to publish such a story. Living on the down low is a risk. He took that chance and lost and has been exposed as a liar.

    1. I disagree. The CFO of Conde Nast is a sufficiently public person to publish such a story. Living on the down low is a risk. He took that chance and lost and has been exposed as a liar.

      Has there been some further development in the veracity of the story that I’m unaware of? Last I heard it was still single-sourced to person of questionable sanity possessing a preoccupation with fanciful conspiracy theories. As far as I’m aware, there’s no reason to believe any of it.

      1. “Sargent dedicated himself to telling a true story of almost no consequence.”

      2. As far as I’m aware, there’s no reason to believe any of it.

        Did you read the article? Gawker checked everything out. This was a bad story (for a scandal sheet) only because the subject is neither famous or interesting enough. Now if it was the former-Treasury Secretary that would be scandal-newsworthy.

      3. The original story contained at least a few pretty solid pieces of corroborating evidence, including a post-marked envelope supposedly used to send cash, from a home address owned by the Geithners.

        1. Yeah. I mean who could ever fake a return address? Like inky the CIA or NSA, right?

          And then they mailed it from somewhere and it may have contained cash? No way that was also faked. To do that, you’d have to enlist multiple government agencies, and minimum a couple hundred people.

          So I guess it must be real given someone involved would’ve talked by now. Unless of course this reaches the highest levels of power and all involved feared death. Illuminati maybe?

          BTW: I actually assume the story is true, I just generally don’t care about people’s private lives and hypocrite or not, see no news or other value in destroying someone else’s life based solely upon the perception that they’re “on the wing side”.

          However, given what Gawker has done, is doing, and will likely continue to do, I see zero reason to believe them based upon an envelope with a specific return address.

    2. Really? I mean, would you have ever known his name? And really, aside from Conde Nast having been briefly in the news for owning reddit a while ago, would you even know who they are? Owner/publisher of Vanity Fair? No reason to know that.

      Try from the angle of “brother of a former treasury secretary”. Nope, not really any better.

      1. Just because I don’t know him doesn’t mean no one knows him.

        1. The story would have made a great blind item. The people in a position to care would know (or quickly learn) who it was. Everyone else would imagine someone more famous and interesting.

        2. Nice self-justification, you worthless prick.

          1. Huh? You don’t think tons of people know him?

            1. No.

      2. And it’s probably appropriate to distinguish between the CFO and the CEO. Were it the CEO it might possibly pass the “newsworthy” test, however repugnant. But the CFO? The freaking top accountant, essentially, that absolutely no one knew of or could possibly care?

        1. The person handling the finances of a multi billion dollar company living a secret gay lifestyle seems pretty newsworthy. I bet the stockholders think so. He was being blackmailed wasn’t he?

          1. The person handling the finances of a multi billion dollar company living a secret gay lifestyle seems pretty newsworthy.

            Sure, if you have the emotional maturity of a 7th grade schoolgirl.

            1. The important part is SECRET.

              1. The important part is YOU’RE A LOW-T LOSER.

              2. “The important part is SECRET.”

                No the important part is PRIVATE you fucking dickbag.

                Guess the 4th amendment and people’s right to privacy no longer even have value to people at reason. We’re fucked

            2. Ha, you overestimate his emotional maturity.

      3. Well, none of us knows who anybody is in pop culture is until we’re told by our social superiors, such as the good folks at Time-Warner or Conde Nast, right?

        I mean, not having cable and being under the age of fifty I really had no idea who Bruce Jenner was until, while standing in the supermarket check-out line, I saw him dressed like a woman on the cover of a magazine.

        Geithner is a wealthy, influential person whose brother was Treasury Secretary. That’s not nothing.

        1. “That’s not nothing.”

          Bo, is that you?

        2. “That’s not nothing.”

          Yes, it is.

    3. Oh piss off, it’s none of your goddamn business and couldn’t possibly affect your life. Don’t be such a piece of shit.

      1. IceTrey clearly has an affinity for gigolo stories.

        1. He’s just angry Gawker didn’t give the escort’s phone number, as he (icetrey) is feeling rather lonely right now).

  4. Reasonable people can disagree about whether politicians like Anthony Weiner and anti-gay religious hypocrites deserve to have their private moral failings brought to light (I personally lean toward respecting people’s privacy, even when they are monsters), but Gawker’s actions in this case served no good purpose

    Monsters, aka elected officials, who make a living by inserting themselves into every single minute detail of other peoples’ lives have given up their right to any privacy, period. I have zero respect for the right to privacy of any of them.

    1. Weiner’s transgressions weren’t exactly private, either. That was kind of why they were transgressive.

  5. In the Weinstein article from the P.M. links, he took the time to rail against Christina Hoff Sommers, Nero and gamergate.

    I don’t really care or know about gamergate or Nero but what in the world has CHS done, other than not be progressive? She’s not at all “hateful” or any of the other adjectives he uses.

    1. prog-jection?

    2. ‘ not be progressive’
      That’s precisely what she’s done.

    3. “what in the world has CHS done, other than not be progressive?”

      Isn’t that enough?

      /s

  6. Speaking of hypocrites, weren’t you guys all “Je suis Charlie” not too long ago, demanding support (not mere tolerance, but SUPPORT) of all free speech, however offensive?

    Now not only are you not supporting this free speech, you’re salivating how the speaker can be punished coercively.

    1. I’m sorry, are you a new-ish troll? I’m afraid I’m not familiar.

      No sarc, I really have somehow not seen you around before, and am curious.

      1. Not a troll. Just a mirror for the intellectually honest.

        1. That sounds awfully pretentious.

          Almost…trollishly pretentious.

          1. Whatev. One man’s smile is another man’s smirk.

            1. “A naked man has few secrets; a flayed man, none.”

              1. Looks like Roose is on the loose!

            2. I was going to ask what you ‘push’, ‘pusher’ (drugs or sexual favors) but apparently it’s cheesy adages. Or perhaps I should ask, ?qui?n usted empuja?

          2. Yes, yes it does.

          3. Do you know who else was a pretentious troll?

        1. It usually is.

      2. I’m sorry, are you a new-ish troll?

        It’s fucking Tulpa.

        1. Good, at least Tulpa is getting laid.

    2. Yeah, but this is Gawker.

      Plus I’m interested more to see the union burn it to the ground, like we knew was going to happen.

      Union destruction of a company couldn’t be more deserved here.

      Time for popcorn!!!

    3. I would fight to the death for Gawker’s right to say whatever stupid bullshit they want (except for potential libel). That doesn’t mean I don’t think they’re a disgusting organization that should be brought down. I refuse to knowingly click links to their sites. That’s not hypocrisy.

      1. I agree. My issue is that I was repeatedly told I not only had to tolerate but support all speech.

        1. Nobody said that. Support 1A =/= love what everyone else is doing with the other side of that coin.

          1. I must have hallucinated all those articles Reason posted condemning those who criticized Charlie Hebdo’s speech then, accusing them of being anti-speech? I’m talking about those who were merely criticizing Hebdo, not calling for them to be coercively punished or restrained.

            1. A very large part of the Hebdo thing was, if you’ll remember, the fucking massacre that went with it. The denunciation of the cartoon was largely capitulating to Sharia types that actually do want to completely shut down free speech. Big difference in motive.

              Not to mention the fact that the entire basis there was satire. This is the direct targeting of a private individual with very little public interest at stake, if any.

              1. The denunciation of the cartoon was largely capitulating to Sharia types that actually do want to completely shut down free speech.

                So, I’m not supposed to express my opinion if “Sharia types” would agree with it? And not supposed to disagree with someone being deserving of a fucking award? Bullshit.

                There’s no reason to think those people’s expressed distaste for Hebdo’s crap was insincere or motivated by fear. What there is reason to think is that a boatload of people with problems with Islam were cladding themselves in the garb of “free speech defenders” as cover for their personal opinions on the religion. And using the rhetoric of free speech in an attempt to stifle speech.

                1. Let me see if I can do this right… I’m still a little green.

                  Strawmen galore.

                  Fuck off, Tulpa.

            2. I’m pretty sure Reason (and the commenters) actually rather ardently attacked the French government for trying to *suppress* the speach of the anti-Charlie Hebdo people. For example, when the counter protesters were arrested for having signs saying ‘je suis’ whatever the terrorists’ names were, they criticized, rightly, the hypocrisy of the French government (and people who supported this) who sought to suppress opposing speech on what was supposed to be a free speech issue.

        2. Can you please point out specific examples of being told that you must support all speech?

            1. I re-read both of those articles just now, to be sure I wasn’t going to misspeak.

              And I didn’t see anywhere that it said you had to support the speech being made.

              Please point out the specific sentences which state as much.

              1. If you can’t see it you’re blind. I’m not your seeing eye dog.

                1. Not a seeing eye dog? So you’re just a whiny bitch, not a useful one?

                  -jcr

              2. Hint: The people being condemned were not calling for coercion against CH. They were merely expressing disapproval of it.

                Ergo, they were being condemned (and called anti-speech) for failing to support CH’s speech.

                1. No, they were being condemned for their constant mealy-mouthed equivocations, which made it sound like they were only giving lip-service to the killings being wrong, and really thought the journalists brought it on themselves.

                  1. So, you’re assuming bad faith on the part of people because they disagree with you? The fact that they EXPLICITLY condemn the murders is evidence that they are really OK with them?

                    I’ll remember that next time you guys are bitching about Salon or Slate twisting libertarians’ words to make them look bad. I wasn’t kidding about that mirror thing. You guys really need one.

                    1. Go jump in a woodchipper, Tulpa.

                    2. I condemn the brutal rape and murder of that 12 year old but its important to note the bitch deserved it.

                      Clearly the above hypothetical statement is a denunciation of a rape so there is no reason anyone would question the anti-rape sincerity of such a speaker. Right? You can substitute Charlie Hebdo as appropriate in the above statement.

                    3. “Murdering people who disagree with you is bad, mkay, but… they kinda had it coming for egging them on…”
                      That doesn’t sound pretty damned heinous a sentiment to you? I think you just have a chip on your shoulder. Hell, I detest Charlie Hebdo, think it’s juvenile horseshit. And yet, saying ‘murder is bad, but….” and the acting as if saying mean things about someone’s beliefs even belongs in the same sentence as brutally murdering a dozen people? That’s quite grotesque. The fact that the ‘egging on’ of homicidal lunatics was treated as a major issue brought to light by the incident is just absurd. It’s like saying, after someone murders a guy because he threw a napkin at a trashcan and missed, saying ‘this is a great time to talk about the horrors of littering.’ It’s just sick. Legal, of course, but reprehensible nonetheless.

        3. Yes, to be a proper libertarian you must support all speech. If you don’t support in with enough vigor you should be forced to by any means necessary.

        4. My issue is that I was repeatedly told

          …by the voices in my head…

    4. I’m actually okay with American defamation law, for the most part. It requires lying (more or less) about someone and causing actual harm, and we go out of our way to protect people acting in a press capacity (which can be one person blogging) when reporting on public figures. Not that defamation suits can’t be used to harass and cost innocent defendants money, but that’s a problem all over the civil realm and not limited to defamation actions. It’s also something a speaker is free to do, he just has to be prepared to pay for it later.

      I’m rather opposed to people executing journalists or anyone else who say things they don’t like, and don’t see much at all in common with this situation. It’s looking likely from what we’re seeing so far that they acted without regard to the truth of the story, just looking to attack a powerful person at a competing institution. That’s okay?

      The nature of the speaker has little effect on whether I’d support their speech rights. I could just as easily defend Gawker if I thought their speech rights were being violated. After all, they aren’t worse than Illinois Nazis–no one is.

      1. Robby wasn’t attacking the article as libel or lies of any sort, he was attacking it as revelation of private truths.

        1. I wasn’t talking about his post, I was talking about the situation itself in relation to our supposed hypocrisy. The actions of Gawker and their counsel point towards concern about a defamation suit, if you ask me. It’s too easy to claim this is newsworthy to go for the publication of private facts tort.

    5. The person handling the finances of a multi billion dollar company living a secret gay lifestyle seems pretty newsworthy

      1. Why?

    6. Speaking of hypocrites, weren’t you guys all “Je suis Charlie” not too long ago, demanding support (not mere tolerance, but SUPPORT) of all free speech, however offensive?

      Talk about your stupid, pointless analogies.

    7. 1,000 year old religious icon that inspires murder across the globe vs. a middle aged accountant who wants some dick while on a business trip. Yup, totally the same.

    8. Charlie hebbo published fictitious works of satire. The Muslims who would be affected by their work was not indvidually affected.

      Gawker published a mostly unverified story. Slander isn’t protected by free speech.

  7. Do we even *know* if we’re dealing with “private facts”? In other words, do we even know the story is true? If the story isn’t factual, then it wouldn’t involve private *facts,* would it? It would involve defamation.

    How do we know the gay hooker is reliable? What corroborative evidence, if any, did (s)he provide?

    1. I think the story would stay up if they had even a scintilla of supporting evidence. While it may be true, they didn’t do anything to verify it. That’s pretty obvious.

      1. Return address, texts, pic etc. I believe Gawker checked the story thoroughly. They never should have published it but, having done so, they should stand by it.

        1. I’m very dubious that they would yank the story if that were true. I suspect there’s a case to be made, maybe even with a smoking gun e-mail or two of the kind of reckless regard for the truth that gets you into defamation land. And the lawyers advised them to yank the story to minimize the damages they’ll be liable for.

          1. Robby posted the criteria under which you can be sued even for publishing truths.

            1. “empujador’s social security number is…; his bank account number is…. ” True statements but nonetheless not protected by law.

          2. You’re underestimating the severity of “Homophobia” as the Ultimate Progressive Sin, far beyond even Racism.

            The Gawker commentariat was staging something as close to a riot as anything I’ve seen on-line. They were clogging every article with comments about the Geithner piece, threatening the editorial board, etc.

            1. That’s a fair point. Though given their history, I still suspect they ran this without much checking.

        2. All of which are easily faked. The idea “Gawker checked the story thoroughly” is laughable.

  8. “Reasonable people can disagree about whether politicians like Anthony Weiner and anti-gay religious hypocrites deserve to have their private moral failings brought to light (I personally lean toward respecting people’s privacy, even when they are monsters)”

    Whatever rule you have, it shouldn’t be “vote the way we tell you and we cover for you; vote differently and we expose your sins.”

    There’s a name for that, and I *strongly suspect* it’s what the media and the gay activists have been doing with many politicians.

    Do you really think that every politician who suddenly “evolves” into a gay rights champion has had some sort of conversion experience or studied new polls? I suspect that a number of them have been either implicitly or explicitly threatened: Vote for tranny rights, and your family and constituents need never know about your mistress/sheep/meth habit/whatever.

    I know the media and activists are capable of doing it. I know they’re self-righteous enough to think they would be on the side of the angels if they did it. I know lots of politicians are cesspools of vice. Combine these factors and it would be remarkable if there *weren’t* cases of blackmail by the gay crowd.

  9. “Reasonable people can disagree about whether politicians like Anthony Weiner and anti-gay religious hypocrites deserve to have their private moral failings brought to light (I personally lean toward respecting people’s privacy, even when they are monsters)”

    Whatever rule you have, it shouldn’t be “vote the way we tell you and we cover for you; vote differently and we expose your sins.”

    There’s a name for that, and I *strongly suspect* it’s what the media and the gay activists have been doing with many politicians.

    Do you really think that every politician who suddenly “evolves” into a gay rights champion has had some sort of conversion experience or studied new polls? I suspect that a number of them have been either implicitly or explicitly threatened: Vote for tranny rights, and your family and constituents need never know about your mistress/sheep/meth habit/whatever.

    I know the media and activists are capable of doing it. I know they’re self-righteous enough to think they would be on the side of the angels if they did it. I know lots of politicians are cesspools of vice. Combine these factors and it would be remarkable if there *weren’t* cases of blackmail by the gay crowd.

    1. I suppose the gay investigative service also has blackmail material on the thousands of opinion poll respondents who’ve changed their minds on the issue?

      1. I see the new troll is introducing himself around. Hi, nice to meet you.

        No, I didn’t say everyone who changed his/her mind did so due to blackmail.

        You have engaged in straw-manning, a fallacy which is as tiresome as it is retarded.

        You’ll be a natural at trolling.

      2. empujador, Notorious G.K.C. (also known as “Eddie”) is another troll, only he covers the religious beat (specifically, he’s in the Virgin Cult of Approved Pedophilia). You two try to play nice.

        1. Moral equivalence is almost as fun as straw-manning, but ultimately just as brain-dead.

          1. Gojira, your moral equivalence act makes you as bad as Adam Lanza.

        2. You’re butthurt about Eddie too?

          1. I guess I’m a people person!

          2. You’re right Acosmist.

            Showing up on a libertarian website and stating that the government should use force to impose a particular moral code on people, based upon your religion, is totally just a constructive addition to the conversation, and in no way trollish.

            1. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to where I advocated this?

              I would imagine there are so many examples you could just pick any number of them at random.

              Come on, then, show us some evidence.

              1. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to where I advocated this?

                Right here.

                Notorious G.K.C.|2.19.15 @ 4:35PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                SSM should not be recognized by the government, actual marriage should be. Because marriage and the family precede the government and the government has no business either redefining marriage *or denying it recognition.*

                1. So I’m advocating using force on people based on their religion? Because that was the accusation.

                  1. Um…

                    …no.

                    The accusation was :

                    the government should use force to impose a particular moral code on people, based upon your religion

                    [emphasis mine]

                    And you do this right here:

                    SSM should not be recognized by the government, actual marriage should be.

                    1. Yeah, you haven’t really backed up your accusation.

                      For one thing, it’s not about “[boldface] your religion” if the sex-binary definition of marriage is shared by Confucians, Protestants, Buddhists, animists, Cubs fans, and all sorts of other religions and non-religions, not just Catholics.

                      And I’ve said the government shouldn’t be putting people in prison for getting gay-married. So what “force” do I advocate?

                    2. Yeah, I really have. It’s black and white, and if you can’t see it it’s simply because you are a mendacious twat.

                      You want the government to discriminate (use force to impose a particular moral code) based upon the teachings of your prefered mysticism.

                    3. You can’t be bothered to even respond to the points I made, you just go back, parrot-like, to your original accusations as if I’d said nothing by way of rebuttal.

                    4. I addressed the original contention. Your rebuttal is chaff.

                    5. No, you couldn’t even be troubled to phone it in.

                    6. I’m frankly too lazy to other searching, and at one point I thought people were too hard on you. I was finally convinced that you were a flaming idiot when you declared your support for criminalizing divorced people who remarried as bigamists. I’m sure someone who gives a shit can dig up that gem.

                    7. “I’m sure someone who gives a shit can dig up that gem.”

                      At least you care enough to repeat the allegation, if not enough to back it up.

            2. Be nice to him. He’s no doubt going through a crisis of faith right now with that asshat Francis running his mouth.

              Stay strong GKC. Your people got through the Borgias and you’ll get through this goofball too.

              1. Shorter empujador: I don’t have any evidence, either.

                Now, Gojira, I spoke too soon, I’m sure you have some evidence to back up your assertions?

                1. Come on, Gojira, don’t run away, if you don’t have any evidence you can at least try and bluff your way out of it with misdirection and insults.

                  1. What is it with my demands for evidence which scares people off?

                    1. Didn’t run away, eating dinner. It’s about that time.

                      Anyway, as I’m now stepping out with my wife, no time to google around tonight, so I will retract my statement, as you are correct, in that if I’m making the positive assertion, I should be the one to provide evidence.

                      I will say that I strongly believe you have stated on multiple occasions that in your ideal world, there would be laws against no-fault divorce and gay marriage.

                      If that’s not accurate, then I am misremembering, and gladly state that I was wrong, and should not have said as much.

                      Never let it be said that I’m unwilling to eat crow if I’m wrong.

                    2. 8:49
                      8:53
                      8:59

                      Do you seriously just sit there and refresh over and over, hoping people will engage you?

                    3. “I will retract my statement, as you are correct, in that if I’m making the positive assertion, I should be the one to provide evidence.”

                      That’s more charitable than I expected.

                      “Do you seriously just sit there and refresh over and over, hoping people will engage you?”

                      I have a particular interest in responding to specific accusations against myself. Call it an obsession if you wish.

                      As for no-fault divorce – no, I don’t believe “I’m bored” is sufficient reason to *invoke the power of the government* to break up your marriage and shuffle your children around. If that makes me a statist theocrat, so be it.

                      “laws against…gay marriage”

                      I’ve said on several occasions that if there is anyone in prison for getting gay-married, or presiding over a gay marriage ceremony, they should be released immediately.

        3. Not even close, Gojira. GKC argues in good faith AFAIK. I may be an atheist, but I don’t get the hate GKC gets.

          1. See, it’s not so much arguing, as showing up on threads back in the day and just shitting them up with random crap about what the Catholic position on something is, even if it had nothing to do with the story at hand. Particularly before his handle change.

            I mean, he did get his previous handle banned for a reason.

            I’m willing to admit that my memory is flawed, and so I may be misremembering him specifically.

            1. Bear in mind that I changed my handle of my own volition.

              And also I recall that at one point, when several commenters said I’d been posting too much religious crap (I think I’d posted about a Catholic holiday), I said I’d try to limit myself to responding when *someone else* brought up a “religious” subject.

              But I never felt shy about responding when, let us say, ENB gave a post about how abortion was so awesome and isn’t it awful that anyone would want the procedure to be more difficult? If someone else brings it up, why can’t I join the conversation?

              Or if there’s an article *about the Pope* and I respond, surely I’m not distracting from “the story at hand” by commenting?

              Also, many of the posts I responded to were on the order of accusing me of bringing up religion – when I wasn’t aware that I had – which makes the whole thing kind of meta if you ask me.

              And after numerous stalkerish posts, I began mocking the stalkers by mentioning religious topics.

              1. PEOPLE, PLEASE!!

                Can we please stay on topic for once!! Almost no one is accusing robby of having a convoluted scheme to turn this issue into his career jump to Buzzfeed. Enough of this Godbothering, and more with the SJW-sympathy-accusations!

                1. Unless Robby acts like Morris the Finicky Cat when presented with any dish that has more culinary sophistication than a Flutternutter sandwich, he’s not Buzzfeed material.

                  1. Wow.

                    Fucking adults ewwwing over relatively mundane foods. They probably don’t have anything more exotic in their freezers than pizza bites, hot pockets and tv dinners. Oh, and frozen pizza.

                    1. DO NOT DISS PIZZA BITES.

                2. “Can we please stay on topic for once!! Almost no one is accusing robby of having a convoluted scheme to turn this issue into his career jump to Buzzfeed. Enough of this Godbothering, and more with the SJW-sympathy-accusations!”

                  I will have you know i was not a made aware of this article until just now.

                  Also I guarantee Robby is now crying in his soup over the fact that now he can no longer troll Gawker articles as his primary source.

              2. As I seem to recall, under my previous handle I would liberally use the opportunity provided by A.M., P.M., and weekend threads to bring up topics I liked – which is kind of the point of those threads – but I so frequently raised “religious” and prolife topics that people got annoyed, including people who shared some of my views.

                So I was like, “OK, I’ll try to wait until *someone else* brings up one of these topics before commenting.”

                Now, I won’t claim that I adhered to that standard 100%, but I will say that if you look, you’ll find that *most* of my comments about abortion, the Pope, the history of the Church, etc., were in response to an article, or a comment, by *someone else* which raised the issue.

                Or taunting an obsessed stalker.

                And there have been so many articles discussing abortion, the Pope, church history, etc. – quite a remarkable number of articles for a libertarian magazine, let me say – that I have had no shortage of stuff to respond to, without, in my opinion, violating the injunction against *introducing* these topics into previously-virginal threads.

                1. meh. Most of my disagreements with Eddie have been constructive. I don’t recall him arguing in bad faith. There was that one time when he argued for government suppression of ‘offensive’ speech. That was a real wing-dinger, but most of the time he argues in good faith.

                  Also, as for SSM neither you, nor I, nor the commiepope is qualified to tell other peole what they like or who they can partner in life with. Also, if a marriage is not serving a couple well, making them unhappy and their children unhappy then they are better served with a no-fault divorce. Making the split as painless as possible for all parties is a noble end.

                  Aside, I liked John Paul II. He seemed like a good man. Since then we have had two shitbags for popes; first a nazi pope and now a commiepope. What is the Catholic church coming to?

                  The old quip “Is the pope catholic?” has lost it’s meaning.

                  1. “There was that one time when he argued for government suppression of ‘offensive’ speech.”

                    I recall once where I said I’d be for suppressing public cursing *in an imaginary world where police didn’t abuse their power,* while I opposed such laws in the real world. Is that what you’re thinking of? Because I sure got a lot of blowback on that one.

                    “Also, if a marriage is not serving a couple well, making them unhappy and their children unhappy then they are better served with a no-fault divorce. Making the split as painless as possible for all parties is a noble end.”

                    A noble end, which IMHO is served better by a fault-based “divorce from bread and board” than by a “no-fault.” Meaning that if your spouse isn’t actually abusing you or the kids, committing adultery, going to prison, etc., etc., there’s no reason you should be able to unilaterally break up the marriage. If your spouse gets unhappy and moves out, that’s no reason to take away your custody of the kids.

                    And if you take up with someone else while Spouse #1 is still alive, I see no need for the government to recognize the new relationship. After all, I presume that the point of separating from your spouse is to escape and unhappy or abusing situation, not to have the chance of trading in your previous spouse for a new model!

                    1. “divorce from bread and board” = innocent spouse can separate from the guilty spouse, but the govt won’t recognize any new marriage while the former spouse is alive. So if you move in with Tony the poolboy you can’t ask the government to recognize the arrangement.

                    2. nb – did you know that the Catholic Church not only endorses the concept of divorce from bread and board, but denying the doctrine makes you a heretic?

                    3. Yes, that is the one I was thinking of. Even if cops were angels it is government suppression of speech.

                      Why be disallowed from taking up with someone else after you have left an unhappy marriage? Celibacy as punishment? As an incentive to get back into an unhappy relationship? I don’t see the point of it.

                      I had a no fault divorce. It was a miserable marriage for both of us. Nobody was cheating, no one was being abused. We were just very different kinds of people who married too early and wanted out. I gave her everything she wanted, including custody and she gave me very generous visitation, as in, whenever I wanted. It worked out well and we are both happy. Our son grew into a fine, well adjusted man.

                      You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about other people’s motives. You can’t know what any given marriage is like unless you are in it. You can’t know what it takes for other people to be happy. You just aren’t qualified to make these calls Eddie. You’re not.

                    4. Just to be fair, and not to seem overly ogre-like, I have no interest in a Police for the Promotion of Virtue and the Repression of Vice wandering around looking to put people back into unhappy marriages (or even to arrest adulterers, a concept I have philosophically endorsed in the past though I have some practical reservations).

                      If you look into the history of Catholic countries, you’ll see that the govt neither endorsed nor went after extramarital relations unless the situation escalated into, say, murder or public disorder.

                      So I guess *government recognition* of “new marriages” is the point where I object.

                      But even here I’m not saying a secular country like the US should be enforcing Catholic canon law. That is, the secular state should only enforce the natural-law aspects of marriage, not the specifically Christian or Catholic aspects. So the state should recognize civil marriages between monks and nuns (which you won’t find in Catholic canon law), it shouldn’t recognize remarriages under the Pauline Privilege, etc., etc.

                    5. To reiterate what my namesake said in his pamphlet on divorce

                      http://basilica.org/pages/eboo…..terton-The Superstition of Divorce.pdf

                      the question isn’t about setting the vice police loose to make people go back to living with their separated spouses, or to interfere with spouses who are voluntarily separating and winding up their affairs, or even to prosecuting adultery. The question is whether to extend govt recognition to *new* relationships while the previous spouses are alive.

                      A key problem of no fault is that it allows one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage when an innocent spouse wants to preserve the marriage. In an adversary system of justice, the government shouldn’t be meddling unless it’s specifically *asked,* by one of the spouses, to get involved. Or if the government is specifically asked to affirmatively asked to give a certificate of approval to a new living arrangement.

                    6. to arrest adulterers, a concept I have philosophically endorsed in the past

                      Jesus fucking christ on a pogo stick.

                    7. Suthenboy,

                      This post isn’t so much aimed at you – because I think we try sincerely to figure out each others’ positions without freaking out – as at certain individuals who, unless I issue detailed disclaimers (and sometimes even if I do) will attribute all sorts of evil positions to me.

                      So that’s why I will return to your question: “Why be disallowed from taking up with someone else after you have left an unhappy marriage?”

                      I think I’ve made clear that, in practice, I have no interest in the government doing this. I have expressed my philosophical support for laws against adultery, but as in my public-cursing scenario, I am dubious about the ability of government to impartially enforce these laws. And I imagine that you could move through, say, 18th-century Catholic Italy and Catholic France without being hassled for your romantic choices. (You might not have as much success associating with “counterrevolutionaries” in the 1790s).

                    8. I want to make clear that I simply have no interest in the government telling married people who are unhappy and are *jointly and voluntarily* making arrangements for their future and their children’s future, that they need state sanction for their actions. No interest whatsoever. If you *requested* state sanction then of course the state would have to take a closer look, but you really don’t strike me as the sort of fellow who cares if the government agrees with his lifestyle choices or not.

                      And I am quite happy that your divorce was amicable. I do know people who did *not* have amicable divorces – or people whose parents didn’t – novels could literally be written about it.

                    9. I think I’ve made clear that, in practice, I have no interest in the government doing this. I have expressed my philosophical support for laws against adultery, but as in my public-cursing scenario, I am dubious about the ability of government to impartially enforce these laws.

                      So philosophically, you have no problem dictating your beliefs on others. You just don’t think the government could do it to your satisfaction.

                      POS!

                    10. Look, why don’t you go off the magical land of incorrupt cops and yell at me *there.* Curse all you want, what’s the worst that could happen?

                    11. F d’A,

                      I was trying to avoid doing this, but you leave me no choice:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdKsgBNEHUU

                    12. That was indeed the money shot, FdA.

                  2. “Since then we have had two shitbags for popes; first a nazi pope and now a commiepope.”

                    OK, I know H&R people call Pope Francis a commie because of his left-wing economics.

                    But where did Benedict XVI became a nazi? Am I missing something?

                    1. His name is Ratzinger and he was a nazi. I know someone who was in his unit in the Wehrmacht. According to him Ratzinger wasn’t as much a true nazi as he was an ambitious ladder-climber and in nazi Germany if you wanted to climb the ladder you joined the party.

                      When they were captured and questioned my friend is still pissed because they held him for three days grilling him, while Ratzinger lied his ass off and was out in a few hours.

                    2. We can continue this at another time. My ambient is having a party with the vodka I drank and I have to hit the bed.

                    3. Ratzinger didn’t turn 18 until a couple of weeks before Berlin fell to the Red Army, so I’m calling bullshit on him being a Wehrmacht ladder-climber.

                    4. I haven’t met your friend – the story I heard is he was drafted into the Hitler Youth in the last days of the war, then deserted.

                      I would imagine that your friend could certainly have gotten media attention at least during the previous Papacy, or even today. The media would love accounts like these.

                    5. “he was drafted” = Ratzinger was drafted

                    6. He was in Godwin Youth….

                    7. So he said. He was in an anti-aircraft unit.

                    8. I never got the hate for Benedict. Yeah he has all the standard Catholic bigotry and idiocy but so does Commie Francis (no matter how much the left likes to tongue his butthole) and so would any Pope who got elected. Benedict was an academic, knew how to write, and abdicated power for the first time in over a thousand years. I hope he sets a precedent. He was a thousand times better than Francis.

                      And really pretty much all the cover up of the molestations falls on John Paul II who everyone sanctifies (literally in the case of Catholics rushing him through the beatification process).

                    9. OK, so apparently he was born in 1927, drafted into the Hitler Youth in 1941 (at age 14), drafted into the army in 1944 (at age 17), and around the time of his 18th birthday in 1945 – soon before the war ended – he deserted. Then the Allies rounded him up as a POW and then let him go.

                      As for the details of his adventures as a teenage Nazi, I can’t speak to that, though I checked an article on that subject on atheism.com and found nothing about him committing any atrocities. And also there’s the fact that a Polish Pope (and saint) who had lived in Nazi-occupied Poland entrusted him with high Church office – and I am curious about the notion that Pope St. John Paul II would put a National Socialist in his administration.

          2. Not even close, Gojira. GKC argues in good faith AFAIK. I may be an atheist, but I don’t get the hate GKC gets.

            Then, you’ve never argued with him, sr. He’s as bad as Bo and/or Tulpa.

            1. I know you are, but what am I?

  10. What a bunch of infantile, delusional pricks. Let’s unionize. Let’s publicly criticize the people who have to pay the bill if our very likely actionable and not very ethical piece stays up, which, incidentally, can dramatically increase the damages if it shows willfulness.

    And how telling is it about wanting to take down “c-suite” executives, apparently without any regard for the truth? And they aren’t doing this to take on the powerful, because they largely embrace the abuses of the government.

    These are the kind of people who are slowly destroying this country–people without ethics, rationality, empathy, or even the slightest understanding of how the world operates. Just a bunch of entitled, self-involved, unethical idiots.

    1. “‘What a bunch of infantile, delusional pricks.””

      yeah, that’s pretty much the sum of it.

      And the comments on that “take down” post? They specifically farm all the ones that *support* their douchebaggery to the front, and leave the 1000+ criticisms in the greyzone.

      That’s just how Gawker rolls. They’re not just dicks; they’re enablers of an entire culture of entitled dickery

  11. I am only just now finding out what this is/was all about.

    I am also trying to figure out why anyone would give a shit about this story. Who is this guy? Some mid-level executive for a magazine no one reads? I thought Conde Nast was a magazine for Dr. office waiting rooms.

    It doesn’t look like Gawker committed any crime here, but it was a pretty nasty thing to do. It has a certain ‘oh look, he’s a faggot!’ feel to it. Maybe that homophobic flavor is what has so many attacking the hypocritical commie rag?

    Moral of this story is if you don’t want to get caught cheating on your wife, don’t cheat on your wife. Also, Gawker, if you don’t want people calling you an asshole, don’t be an asshole.

    1. I take that back, Gawker did do something wrong.

      I am still not completely clear on whether the allegations are true or if the escort made it all up.

      1. Nobody is, but this has the same feel as a lot of the BS rape stories of late. One source, probably not mentally stable, history of screwing with journalists.

    2. The uproar is largely because this is Gawker and they have a very, very long track record of doing things that are objectively far worse than this.

      1. You mean, like this:

        Gawker hypocrisy

        I think this is known as pulling a ‘Harris-Perry’.

        1. Lefties are lying scumbags. It must occur to them that if they actually sacked up and paid their taxes they would have some moral authority on the subject and would be more convincing, but that would actually mean paying so there is little danger of that.

          What they want are the wrong kinds of people to be paying and the right kinds not paying. For them taxes are a weapon used to punish their ideological enemies.

    3. Some mid-level executive for a magazine no one reads? I thought Conde Nast was a magazine for Dr. office waiting rooms.

      The subtext is that Conde Nast owns Reddit, which Gawker has a huge hate-boner for. It looks like the “reporter” was looking to break a story that would embarrass their competitor. The fact that it impacted a private individual with no public profile whatsoever (except for the fact that he had a relatively famous brother) is what caused the commentariat there to almost universally turn on the company and for the story to go viral.

      I seriously hope this means the end of Gawker. This is an institution devoted to exponentially expanding the power of the government, staffed by a claque of people who get their jollies looking to ruin lives. They’re like nerds who are still butthurt about not being in the cool clique in high school and are looking to make the rest of society pay for their insecurities.

      Gawker and their staff are a cultural cancer that needs to be radiated post-haste.

  12. I don’t understand what this is about or why it matters.

    “There is a temptation to defend what Gawker did as some kind of exercise in radical free speech. According to Gawker’s own editorial guidelines, there are only two things that matter when deciding to publish a story: is it true, and is it interesting?

    It would be easier to believe that this was an articulation of some clear principle if Gawker writers weren’t such hypocrites. Many have derided the exact same kind of radical, offensive free speech when other platforms for expression?Reddit, for example?have allowed similarly extreme transgressions.”

    So, we’re not supposed to care about the free speech rights of hypocrites?

    I often get the Weigel vibe from Robbie–the feeling that somebody that doesn’t really understand or like libertarianism is trying to explain libertarianism to me.

    If Robbie doesn’t think Gawker’s First Amendment rights should be respected because they’re hypocrites, I wonder if he thinks the terrorist in Tennessee’s Fifth Amendment rights should be respected. I’d explain to Robbie that respecting other people’s rights isn’t really about whether we like the people themselves, but if he doesn’t already understand that by now, …

    Like I said, like David Weigel vibe all over again.

    And if we boycott Gawker to show our libertarian disapproval, is it because they put the story up in the first place? Because they took it down? Does it matter?

    I still don’t get it.

    1. There are a ton of previous (more egregious) things Gawker has done, Milo Yananposlieng (sp?) over at Breitbart compiled a nice list of them. I don’t think this is so much about freedom of speech as it is journalistic standards and the left’s bizarre obsession with ruining private citizens’ reputations without any compelling “public interest” at stake. A boycott is perfectly libertarian, and I had implemented a personal one against that site and its subsidiaries long ago…

      1. I only read Jalopnik

        1. I used to read Deadspin because some of their stuff used to be funny, but around christmas last year they got SUPER into the GamerGate thing and ruined it. I don’t need SJW-ism in my comedy sports blog.

          1. Gamergate ruined a Gawker rag?

            You are fucking welcome.

          2. Deadspin turned to shit around the time Craggs came on board around 2008.

        2. you should be ashamed in your privilege at reading about the huge amount of privilege necessary to own a used card.

          http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c…..cheap-car/

      2. It has to do with the intent to out a closeted gay man. That’s why it’s a big deal this time.

        1. Maybe gay is the new black.

      3. Thanks fleshy. That cleared things up for me.

        Gawker should have been put through a woodchipper long ago.

        It’s a good read if you want to know what this is about.

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-j…..ker-media/

        1. Yeah sorry, I still haven’t figured out links on here or else I’d have put that up for you. It’s just laziness.

    2. I often get the Weigel vibe from Robbie

      No, Weigel is a better writer.

      1. Weigel was fairly sharp about retail politics. In the really lame, ‘i once ran for class president’ sort of way.

        He almost always came to horribly wrong conclusions, but he understood campaigns and how politicians operate.

    3. I don’t think anyone (here) is calling for Gawker to be censored, they’re just joining in on the shaming Gawker thing.

      First amendment doesn’t enter into it at all. “Yea, you can publish it, but we’re all going to call you assholes, maybe not do business with people dumb enough to advertise on you.”

      1. How is anyone going to know that you’re boycotting them because they put the story up rather than because they took the story down?

        1. As long as Gawker is on the receiving end, who cares?

          *self-satisfied grin*

          (I don’t even know who their advertisers are)

    4. If Robbie doesn’t think Gawker’s First Amendment rights should be respected because they’re hypocrites

      Where does he indicate believing that? Your post is far more confusing than his.

      1. “There is a temptation to defend what Gawker did as some kind of exercise in radical free speech. According to Gawker’s own editorial guidelines, there are only two things that matter when deciding to publish a story: is it true, and is it interesting?

        It would be easier to believe that this was an articulation of some clear principle if Gawker writers weren’t such hypocrites.”

        —-Robbie

        We’re not supposed to defend the principle of radical free speech because Gawker writers are hypocrites?

        1. You’re misreading.

          The idea is that we might somehow judge their behavior differently if Gawker was the type of outlet that was willing to publish just about anything about anyone because they believe in “radical free speech”. But their voluminous history shows that they are clearly not.

          It’s not that they don’t deserve freedom of speech because they’re hypocrites; it’s that they’re not entitled to (hypothetically) say “we’re not dicks, we just believe in ‘radical free speech'” — because they clearly don’t.

          1. You don’t seem to be getting it.

            There isn’t anything about being a Nazi, a child molester, a terrorist, or a hypocrite that makes me think any such people don’t have the right to free speech.

            I’m certainly not about to denigrate anyone’s right to free speech on the basis that what the hypocrite wrote was deeply offensive to gays, progressives, and/or Robby Soave.

            “There is a temptation to defend what Gawker did as some kind of exercise in radical free speech”

            Indeed there is. And I call that temptation “libertarianism”.

            Whether they should have published it may be an open question.

            Whether what they wrote can be defended on the basis of radical free speech–regardless of whether they’re hypocrites–is not an open question. I’ll defend the right of hypocrites to write any stupid, distasteful and hypocritical thing they want–so long as they aren’t violating anyone’s rights in the process.

            You can call that “radical free speech”, but it’s also Libertarianism 101.

            1. It looks like there is pretty good chance that the story is false.

              1. If someone’s rights were violated, that’s one thing.

                The Second Amendment doesn’t give us permission to violate someone’s rights with a gun, and the First Amendment doesn’t give us permission to violate someone’s rights with our speech.

                But the hypocrisy of the writer doesn’t have anything to do with it.

                1. Ken,

                  neither here nor there, but this isn’t really a question of ‘radical free speech’, a la Wikileaks.

                  This is so-called journalism which is operating on a level where there is no rational public interest.

                  i think they’re separate issues.

                  1. oh, but i don’t mean to suggest that “Robby makes sense” by saying that. (re: the issue of being ‘hypocrites’)

                    I had my own complaints with his gloss on the issue below.

                  2. “neither here nor there, but this isn’t really a question of ‘radical free speech’, a la Wikileaks.”

                    The comparison was between the possible results of what Wikileaks printed and the hypocrisy Robby is decrying.

                    If potentially compromising national security isn’t enough to disqualify radical free speech…

                    If the speaker being a filthy Nazi isn’t enough to disqualify radical free speech…

                    Then why would someone being a hypocrite make any difference?

                    That was the comparison I was making.

                    Not between the dignity or standards of Wikileaks, on the one hand, and professional journalists on the other.

                    1. “why would someone being a hypocrite make any difference’?”

                      I only think that’s relevant relative to the argument Gawker is making about why they thought they had some kind of journalistic mandate to skewer people “in power”

                      ultimately, if what they’re doing is journalism, then they need to demonstrate why any particular story is in the public interest. “Because its there” is not adequate.

                      Wikileaks i think justifies it by positioning itself as providing transparency to the workings of Government or other institutions that supposed to themselves serve the public interest. They have a neutrality to their attitude re: ‘information’.

                      Gawker has no such defense. They only ran this story because it hurt someone at a competing media organization they loathe.

            2. You don’t seem to be getting it.

              No, I don’t. Robby was perfectly clear and I’m not sure how else to explain it. No one else seems to be struggling to comprehend.

              1. Please explain to me what hypocrisy has to do with whether someone’s speech can be defended from a radical free speech perspective.

                1. You seem to be reading defend… as some kind of exercise in radical free speech as defend… because it is radical free speech. That is not what is being said. A more precise (but unnecessary, since context makes it clear — read the whole two paragraphs) way to write it would be defend… as some kind of exercise of a belief in radical free speech.

                  When talking about ethics and dickishness (which Robby is when he speaks of “defend[ing]”, not about rights), there are certain people and organizations that “get a pass” from some because they do so operating under some stated principle of “speaking truth to power” or “radical free speak”. WikiLeaks, as Christophe mentions, is a good example. They have a well-established goal and track record of stripping the privacy from governments and corporations, so the fact that they publish what they do is not so shocking any more.

                  In theory (“There is a temptation to”) one could say something similar about Gawker and “give them a pass” — they are simply acting out a policy of “radical free speech” wherein they publish based on the simple guidelines “is it true, and is it interesting?”

                  But in practice, it is clear that they are not guided by such an ideology, so they do not get such a “pass”. Again, this “pass” is about dickishness, shock, and ethics (and up for debate), not about rights.

                  1. “But in practice, it is clear that they are not guided by such an ideology, so they do not get such a “pass”.

                    That isn’t the way free speech works.

                    Nasty, horrible, awful, ugly, mean, stupid, and unjust people have all the same rights the rest of us do.

                    In order to stand up for my own rights, I don’t need a big-eyed, sad bunny to feel sorry for.

                    http://www.cutebunnypictures.c….._Bunny.jpg

                    Seeing someone that’s supposed to be advocating for libertarianism make the case that these people’s claim to free speech as a justification is in question becasue their eyes aren’t big and droopy, and they don’t have a fluffy cotton tail is…more than just a little bothersome.

                    He doesn’t get it.

                    He shouldn’t have mentioned free speech at all.

          2. WikiLeaks, for example, can publish pretty much anything about anyone and people just shrug.

            1. Yes, but they’re not hypocrites, so that’s okay.

              Is that what Robby is saying?

              For all I know, WikiLeaks may have published information that led to the deaths of informants in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, but that’s perfectly acceptable from a radical free speech perspective because the WikiLeaks people aren’t hypocrites…

              Is that what we’re supposed to say?

              Jesus, you’d think free speech didn’t protect the rights of the unprincipled.

              Can you imagine if our religious rights weren’t protected if we cheated on ours spouses and committed adultery?

              Or God forbid if we’d ever broke a commandment and lied?

    5. I think he’s saying that the first amendment might protect them from legal consequences, but the writers at Gawker are nasty, stupid, petty little fucksticks that would have been run out of polite society long ago if they didn’t attach themselves to Social Justice to try to get a free pass for bad behavior.

      1. I appreciate that argument.

        Why insert some bullcrap about how it would be tempting to support radical free speech if only it weren’t for the hypocrites?

        The idea that when I stand up for the free speech rights of Nazis, pornographers, terrorists, and hypocrites, I’m actually standing up for my own free speech rights–rather than standing up for Nazis, pornographers, terrorists, or hypocrites themselves–is pretty central to what I mean when I call myself a libertarian.

        1. It would be easier to believe that this was an articulation of some clear principle if Gawker writers weren’t such hypocrites.

          He didn’t say we shouldn’t support freedom of speech, he just said that if Gawker tries to defend their actions as rigid adherence to principle, they’re full of shit. Like all of their ilk, their rule is “principals, not principles”.

          1. No, they aren’t cute little bunnies.

            Neither are Nazis.

            But they have a legitimate right to free speech, too.

            I hope some of this is getting through to somebody.

            1. Nothing has to get through to us. No one is saying they don’t have a right to free speech.

              The “defense” we’re talking about is regarding their character and the morality of their speech, not whether they are allowed to make it.

              If someone accuses the ACLU of secretly being Nazi sympathizers because they go to court for skinheads, we can look at their record to see that they are acting on general principle of supporting speech, and not any specific love for the cause (and probably despite a great deal of hate for it). We could use that to defend them against the charge of being Nazi sympathizers.

              If another group did the same thing, but regularly agitated for Communists to be imprisoned for their speech, it would be much more believable that the second group’s defense of neo-Nazis was based in support for their cause. We couldn’t offer any defense to the allegations of Nazi sympathies.

              1. No one is saying they don’t have a right to free speech.

                Robby wrote that we should resist the radical free speech argument because they’re a bunch of hypocrites.

                Read the fucking quote.

                In reality, the principles of free speech cover hypocrites, too.

                No libertarian should ever argue that hypocrisy somehow undermines the legitimacy of the free speech argument–or they are hoisting themselves and the rest of us on our own petard.

    6. This is rich from Ken “don’t say cunt” Schultz.

      1. Arguing that we’re hurting our own movement by making ourselves less attractive to female supporters and arguing that hypocrisy makes the radical free speech argument untenable are two different things.

  13. For the sake of accuracy, it was a 4-2 decision by the board over there. Please see the correction here: http://gawker.com/gawker-is-re…..1718582003

    For those who don’t want to give them a click, the correction states: “* Correction: This post originally stated that Heather Dietrick, the President and chief legal counsel of Gawker Media, voted to remove the post. In fact her vote was miscounted due to a miscommunication that occurred during a Friday morning meeting where the managing partners voted; Dietrick voted to keep the post.”

    Making it Tommy Craggs and Heather Dietrick who voted against the removal.

    1. Hmm. Your chief legal counsel voting to remove wouldn’t look good come lawsuit-time. This may well be rewriting history.

      1. That was my thinking, too. Frankly, they should’ve kept that vote under the privilege.

      2. Right. How does a chief legal counsel “miscommunicate” what I’d imagine comes down to a simple “yes/no” question. Though lawyers…

        My guess is that she hedged. Probably wrote something like: “I would tend to defer to the Executive Editor, Tommy Cragg’s decision. However the post does put the company in a legal minefield at a time when we are putting out litigious fires on all fronts,”

        1. I would have thought she would abstain, seeing as how it was a potential litigation matter.

          1. There might be by-laws for their governing board that don’t allow for abstention, or force the other five to man the woodchipper if someone abstains. I’m not a doctor, I just play one on TV.

  14. Just remember, proglodytes hate everyone, including themselves. And their self loathing hatred eventually becomes a thing of it’s own, without direction, and anyone or anything will become a target.

    When your entire existence depends upon an unworkable concept that is not based in reality and everyone will not conform to the insanity, you only have one thing left. Blame and attack, anyone and everything,whine, cry, screech, attack, attack, attack. It’s not my fault, it’s their fault! Them! Get them!

  15. Not saying it’s right but this is typical tabloid tripe.

    1. Perhaps true, but unfortunately Gawker gets taken farrrrrr more seriously than your run-of-the-mill National Enquirer crap by the media because it has a certain slant.

      1. Well, when you’re a leftist, you had better stick together with other leftists and rely on consensus since your ideas have absolutely no merit of their own.

        1. +1 Echo Chamber

          1. +1 Echo Chamber

            1. +1 Echo Chamber

              1. Needz moar echo

              2. +1 Echo Chamber?

  16. I’d like a little advice.

    I bought my house from a divorcing couple. I met the husband but not the wife at closing. The divorce was ugly and the wife and husband were not at closing at the same time. I have no idea where the husband is, and I don’t want to know.

    Every now and then, starting a few years after I closed on this house, I’ve received a letter from the IRS addressed to the husband. I’ve always wrote “Return to Sender, Addressee Moved” on them and put them back in my mailbox. The postman takes them away. A few had markings from the postal service (mainly question marks) indicating the postman isn’t sure the guy lives here any more.

    I received another one today. I’m tired of this. Any ideas on how I can stop them? Do I need or should I talk to a lawyer about it?

    As a side note, about a year after I closed, one of the town cops showed up looking for the husband. I told them I met him at closing and I haven’t seen him since. I don’t know where he is. They’ve never come back looking for him. The cop even said he checked the property records and saw the place was sold, but said he wanted to check to be certain the guy was gone.

    1. Good luck. I would take the letter back to the post office and ask them to not forward any more mail for this person to your address. Not that this will do any good.

      About 5 years ago, I got a new phone number that I just randomly chose from a list of available numbers for my area. Little did I know that I apparently chose a number that previously belonged to a woman who owes every fucking company in the country a lot of money. After 5 years of calling people and cursing severely at them to stop fucking calling me, having my lawyer call them, and blocking all the numbers, it’s slowed down, a little.

    2. Good luck. I would take the letter back to the post office and ask them to not forward any more mail for this person to your address. Not that this will do any good.

      About 5 years ago, I got a new phone number that I just randomly chose from a list of available numbers for my area. Little did I know that I apparently chose a number that previously belonged to a woman who owes every fucking company in the country a lot of money. After 5 years of calling people and cursing severely at them to stop fucking calling me, having my lawyer call them, and blocking all the numbers, it’s slowed down, a little.

    3. Good luck. I would take the letter back to the post office and ask them to not forward any more mail for this person to your address. Not that this will do any good.

      About 5 years ago, I got a new phone number that I just randomly chose from a list of available numbers for my area. Little did I know that I apparently chose a number that previously belonged to a woman who owes every fucking company in the country a lot of money. After 5 years of calling people and cursing severely at them to stop fucking calling me, having my lawyer call them, and blocking all the numbers, it’s slowed down, a little.

      1. The squirrels got you. That’s better than the IRS.

        Hopefully those calls you’re getting stop.

        Thanks!

    4. “I bought my house from a divorcing couple.”

      I hope you have good title insurance.

      It is not uncommon for property of divorcees to be sold with one party taking the money and the other still having ownership. I have seen this situation pop up a number of times and in one case two generations after the divorce. Heirs came looking for their money 40 years later when the property had already passed through two owners. Of course all this depends on the laws in your state.

      I always do the title search myself.

      As for the IRS, keep doing what you are doing. It is a lot less trouble than dealing with the IRS. Besides, they are so batshit powercrazed they might try to collect the guy’s back taxes from you just because you drew their attention.

      1. I hope you have good title insurance.

        Yes, I have title insurance.

        I doubt the sale involved one party trying to rip off the other party. The closing agent would have had to be in on it. She witnessed both husband and wife signing the deed over. Closing was at a well-established area title company.

        I’ll keep doing what I’m doing. Thanks!

    5. Open the letter and cash the check.

  17. Reasonable people can disagree about whether politicians like Anthony Weiner and anti-gay religious hypocrites deserve to have their private moral failings brought to light (I personally lean toward respecting people’s privacy, even when they are monsters), but Gawker’s actions in this case served no good purpose.

    No good purpose? How else will those anti-gay monsters learn?

    In some sense, Sabrina Rubin Erdely dedicated herself to telling a false story of enormous consequence. Sargent dedicated himself to telling a true story of almost no consequence. In doing so, both made horrible mistakes.

    Yeah, these two cases are clearly equivalent. Both equally horrible.

    Many have derided the exact same kind of radical, offensive free speech when other platforms for expression?Reddit, for example?have allowed similarly extreme transgressions.

    Jesus dude, you need to calm down. This is just salacious gossip not some fundamental breach of journalistic ethics. This site, from time to time, runs stories of a similar nature. I am guessing you have a personal beef with Sargent or Gawker rejected you some time in the past.

    1. Have you never read Robby’s writing before? This is not a new pattern in his writing (and I like him, FWIW).

    2. Gawker has a pattern of doing this stuff. It should be denounced more strongly every time it happens. Just because they call themselves a gossip column does not mean they actually believe that. They push this junk as real journalism with the disclaimer that it’s just a gossip column for some thin legal protection.

      Not that it’s Gawker’s fault (although they are slightly culpable), but the rest of the media takes Gawker more seriously than National Enquirer, et al.

      1. Gawker is that delightful little puddle of precum that precedes the real deal.

        1. Perfect analogy. The secretion that is Gawker merely exists to lubricate towards the common goal of the end-game without the Real Deal needing to be involved before it is ready.

      2. “Not that it’s Gawker’s fault (although they are slightly culpable), but the rest of the media takes Gawker more seriously than National Enquirer, et al.”

        Gawker is completely culpable. Nick Denton is a malignant narcissist and part of his narcissism is a constant need to inflate his accomplishments and pretend he’s running a serious website, rather than a sleazy tabloid rag. Here’s Denton’s post about the Hogan lawsuit, and the fucker acts like he just uncovered the truth about My Lai.

        “Being a tight community of free writers, independent as a company and committed to putting out the real story, Gawker Media can bear a higher level of uncertainty than most. I believe it’s more likely than not we emerge tested and stronger, clear in our responsibility to readers and the values of our writers’ profession. Without someone actually having the gumption to fight these cases, journalists might as well resign themselves to a role as liaisons for PR people and stenographers for celebrities.”

        They published a sex tape and he’s babbling about their ‘responsibility to readers.’ Gawker has pretensions of seriousness which is continually undercut by their actual behavior.

        1. Sure but the MSM is more culpable for considering Gawker to be a serious source. I can run around claiming that I know my ass from a hole in the wall (and I do!) but nobody would (does) believe me.

        2. They published a sex tape and he’s babbling about their ‘responsibility to readers.’

          And this is the same website that got up on their moral high horse about The Fappening.

      3. They push this junk as real journalism with the disclaimer that it’s just a gossip column for some thin legal protection.

        Not that it’s Gawker’s fault (although they are slightly culpable), but the rest of the media takes Gawker more seriously than National Enquirer, et al.

        They take Gawker seriously when it serves their purpose. Gawker is no different than. MSNBC, FNC, SPLC (an organization used for propaganda purposes), etc., Their are some good people who are journalist out there who try to be objective but the whole mantra of journalistic ethics is a mostly just a clever ruse. We all know what Gawker is. We all know what Salon is. Why should we pretend to be outraged when they fulfill our expectations. Part of their shtick is to generate outrage. They probably don’t believe half the things they post. Then want attention and want to be influential. A lot of sources competing for people’s attention. Getting folks angry works.

        1. Exactly. I have a post to this effect elsewhere. If Gawker were Breitbart (and if Breitbart had ZERO journalistic standards), nobody in the MSM would report the stuff because it wouldn’t suit their end-game. The means always justify the ends to liberals.

      4. but the rest of the media takes Gawker more seriously than National Enquirer, et al.

        And I can’t figure out why.

  18. Fucking squirrels.

  19. ” Rolling Stone’s failure in the University of Virginia rape story was partially born of its desire not to press its source for uncomfortable truths. But in a very real sense, Gawker did a similar thing here. Sargent respected the privacy of the escort?a manifestly untrustworthy conspiracy theorist?but not the person whose life he was about to destroy. In some sense, Sabrina Rubin Erdely dedicated herself to telling a false story of enormous consequence. Sargent dedicated himself to telling a true story of almost no consequence. In doing so, both made horrible mistakes.”

    almost none of this is true.

    Rolling Stone didn’t “fail” because of its excessive-concern for Jackie’s privacy and feelings. They failed because they knowingly aided and abetted a liar that they knew lacked credibility, and purposely avoiding fact-checking things they knew which would undermine her narrative, which is all they wanted.

    Similarly, Sargent wasn’t “respecting the privacy of the escort” – he was aiding and abetting a male-prostitute who was committing blackmail against someone the Gawker editorial *wanted to help destroy*.

    Gawker used their source the same way Rolling Stone did = to avoid direct culpability.

    This pretense that these institutions were acting with ‘best intentions’ and were merely victims of their own generosity is fucking idiotic, and verges on willful denial of reality.

    1. “Similarly, Sargent wasn’t “respecting the privacy of the escort” – he was aiding and abetting a male-prostitute who was committing blackmail against someone the Gawker editorial *wanted to help destroy*.”

      Well, assuming their hugely unreliable source didn’t fake the whole story. I think it’s very possible the entire story is false, concocted by a crazy person who wants attention.

      That’s the real danger of Gawker getting sued. They could get hammered for defamation if it turns out they published lies from an unreliable source without vetting.

  20. I love you, Robby. But I like reading shit leaves, dear. My sorry thought dump wiggles through voids as it fondles coagulated sentences. Gawker is its own smashhead. Nothing there is as erudite as Gawker enjoys believing. So roll on marvelous scribe and volcano your angst- that is your occupation. Mine is to suck air and destroy my heart with a million diversions.

    1. My job is merely to be acted upon by operators (I prefer the ones that commute).

      1. Brittle operators plank the shatters, fleshy.

        1. I wonder what your wavefunction would look like. It would probably break mathematics. Your complex conjugate is likely to be doubly imaginary.

          1. My linear breakaways roiling under the heavy soap of converging disasters would pause and enjoy Mr Fleshy colliding into an intemperate disconnection of lines and sound and soil and my armatures compelled by aesthetic pleasures would offer a soapy trophy of elastic light to Mr Fleshy.

            1. I’ll have to ponder this for awhile. But I get a good vibe from it, so I thank you.

              1. Your wave function tripped on various sources of matter and inanimate items and your fleshy goodness waved hello to me as it glided giddily into the future I wish to demand survival in… So I forced a trophy upon your fading trails, man.

    2. Buckle up. It’s about to get weird.

  21. Yank the Confederate flag, now this gets yanked. What next yanks are coming? Yank doodles of dandy Mohammed?

  22. one of our core goals is to protect the editorial independence of Gawker Media sites from the influence of business-side concerns.

    Fucking unions man.

    History has show that that is a faaaaast way to lose editorial independence – because you went out of business.

    1. 1) The social signaling is wonderful here, with them slamming (as they have done before) the very corporate advertisers that they keep afloat.

      2) “Editorial independence” my ass. That’s for the intellectually honest.

    2. Unions are like when Unca Bob gives all the kids a box of twinkies and then after a single fucking bite Unca Bob smashes the twinkies over all the fucking kid’s faces with a whirlwind crescent kick.

      Shit is good for the first rational sampling by the reasonable human glands…. but there is no peace afterwards. Ever. Because unions are managed by retards who are more fucking mentally challenged than my friend Billy McFinkerton.

  23. ? “Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Publication of the private facts in question must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.”

    Whoa, whoa! Aren’t we supposed to be celebrating gay sex these days? In fact, I think referring to gay sex as “offensive” may be a hate crime.

    [ducks and runs]

    1. Bunch of Gawker dawg commentomustafos became instant Libertarian Christs when they scrammed about a supposed non-hypocrite hiring a supposed gay dick up his ass cuz because escorts are evidently fine if your dollars are purchase gay cock dipped in maple syrup and slide gently up your rich ass pucker. Very Libertarian of the Gawker middle class socialists to get this ‘the fuckschlongs. But never fucking be any old dumbass coked up hardworking construction worker on the weekend in Miami desperate for a 50 buck blowjob. Gawk socialists will hate your you fucking sex trafficking miserable fuck parasite dickballs.

  24. Humanity is a hypocrite storm, bros.

    1. Somethin Something Bloody Vagina Ham Tears Tasting like Stolen Beer. =)

    1. Is it ever much else on Friday night? And why am I not watching season 2 of Bojack yet?

      1. What?

        They made a second season?

        The narrative arc was concluded in the first season!!!!

        What the hell are they thinking even making a second season?

        1. I cannot figure out why I have to sign in with a Google account to view this video but the dubstep video you posted above anyone can view without signing in.

    2. A giant horde of aliens and cute blonde galaxians group fucked and spilled puddles of spermstars and galactic eggs and at the end of 13 moon cycles hero spilled out and fell into a wormhole lined with star parrots miming very old movie lines and at the end a human woman had an orgasm at the exact spot you hit the earth and heroik was born.

        1. If juxtapositions leapt onto the same back of a screaming elk being ripped apart by alpha wolves shimmering with the eloquent brains of sun threads these juxtapositions should draw lasers and live as future men in the land of causes.

    3. You know, I know the libertarian moment will never come, but everyone in the world hating Gawker as much as I do, even if it’s only for a day or two, is almost as good. I feel a sense of togetherness and harmony with all of the world.

  25. So what’s up with the B-2? I grew up thinking this thing is the shit. Has it even ever been used? Was it more of a delivery package for nuclear warheads?

    1. If I remember correctly, it flew in Iraq, at least.

      1. A B2 visited me late one night, heroika. She was sleek and intelligent and she glided over my sprung cock with a military deftness and after about 45 minutes of foreplay her dark majestic lips between her wings gripped my missile and pushed the button, baby. The B2 smashed the night sky as her ebony flames left me scarred with her special orgasms and I died and arose.

      2. A B2 visited me late one night, heroika. She was sleek and intelligent and she glided over my sprung cock with a military deftness and after about 45 minutes of foreplay her dark majestic lips between her wings gripped my missile and pushed the button, baby. The B2 smashed the night sky as her ebony flames left me scarred with her special orgasms and I died and arose.

      3. A B2 visited me late one night, heroika. She was sleek and intelligent and she glided over my sprung cock with a military deftness and after about 45 minutes of foreplay her dark majestic lips between her wings gripped my missile and pushed the button, baby. The B2 smashed the night sky as her ebony flames left me scarred with her special orgasms and I died and arose.

      4. A B2 visited me late one night, heroika. She was sleek and intelligent and she glided over my sprung cock with a military deftness and after about 45 minutes of foreplay her dark majestic lips between her wings gripped my missile and pushed the button, baby. The B2 smashed the night sky as her ebony flames left me scarred with her special orgasms and I died and arose.

      5. No I think it flew in a Christian Slater movie first.

        1. Correction = TRAVOLTA/SLATER movie

    2. Every fucking vein and nail in the B2 rivals a magical river of human mental thrones. A veritable scribbling of the gods. Wars call out the brilliant amount us who decry death but aspire within to code the final curtain. Military and its quest of death is unrivasled in its lust for pyrasmidic intelligence…. The B2 delivered a billion geek orgasms and maybe some other shit.

    3. It’s been used. There are only 20 of them. It goes when/where other aircraft can’t. High priority well protected targets.

      1. But has it ever been used for that? I see it was deployed during GW1, but… come on, let’s be honest, that’s just training.

        1. Many times. It kicks down the door. Takes out key targets (primarily IADS) until the airspace is sanitized enough as to be survivable by non-stealth aircraft. After that happens, they go home, as you only have 20, you don’t risk them doing the grunt work.

          1. I think I just realized we’re Rome dealing with barbarians. The barbarians have incredible defense systems that we’d have loved to enjoy, or in any event, our European counterparts, a few generations ago, would have loved to have around. But we have fighters advanced enough to, selectively, when it’s necessary, put an end to their pathetic barbarian shenanigans. Does that sound right?

            1. Rockets kill humans not causes, lovely.

            2. That’s, at least, the plan. There are some threats that no one flies into. They are handled by other means.

            3. Military expansion can only get you so far. At some point you need to do business with the people you conquer. The Delian League was very successful in it’s time. It was an economic empire.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League

        2. It was used on posters, man

  26. You ever sit on a toilet as a dude late in your little hovel to piss while drinking your fav booze and while your dick is nursing a pretty couple of drops of piss your mouth swigs great booze and all o sudden your penis hole and your mouth are enjoying something similar?

      1. I worry about my penis piss plesha and mouth plesha getting Kentucky fried, spitgod

  27. Stop reading the site.

    Way ahead of you. Years ago.

    That includes ALL Gawker spawn.

    1. “That includes ALL Gawker spawn.”

      You do realize that includes like 90% of all Robbie’s articles of the past year right? Including this one.

      1. Toledo, love, why you gotta fukwada homey popafuk wid our Soave, love mafia crewman bus? Soave pops, sis.

      2. Robbie is my favorite writer at reason right now (though a good part of that is the topics he covers). Doherty doesn’t post enough.

        1. “though a good part of that is the topics he covers”

          You know who else covers those same topics?

      3. I don’t *read* Gawker. I can’t stop someone from writing about it.

  28. Seems there might be evidence linking male escort Leif Derek Truitt with Gawker as the source?

    http://scallywagandvagabond.co…..ce-source/

    1. Leif Derek alone!

  29. Hey, Tulpa, you still live in Pittsburgh, right? We should hang out. I promise not to murder you and stuff. Srsly.

  30. I can’t fucking talk to ghosts right now…. My tech here is Rollin under dark…and what’s up with the. Lights with greenglow man…shit s like deep dank under pilesofdemons and bro the deep clips escape the brain gardens.

    Bro you know… God forgives you but not me.
    I live without eternal eye on me.

  31. A truly empathetic approach would not draw the line at hypocrisy. It’s still damaging to out an anti-gay politician. Likely, it is relatively more damaging.

    Even a cynical closeted Republican who votes against gay rights doesn’t necessarily deserve to have his life derailed. The mannerly approach is discreet blackmail, of course.

    1. Except this guy wasn’t even an anti-gay politician. He’s the relatively anonymous brother of an ex-administration secretary who just happens to be the chief bean counter for Gawker’s competitor and bete noir.

      Gawker badly fucked this up, but it’s just the latest episode in a long line of incidents where they deliberately set out to ruin and embarrass people while trying to hide behind the guise of “journalism.”

  32. If the victim does successfully sue over this story, it would likely set a precedent that can be used against local police departments that publish the names of people arrested for prostitution. Good!

  33. I didn’t read the Gawker article, so don’t know specific details, such as timing. But am wondering if the Obama admin would have wanted to know about the brother’s liaisons prior to nominating Timothy, if in fact there were liaisons prior to or contemporaneous with Timothy’s tenure as Sec. of Treasury. It’s not hard to come up with a hypothetical where someone would use the information about the brother to gain access to the Sec. of the Treasury or try to influence policy.

  34. I’m not sure my threat to stop reading Gawker will be terribly effective, given that I never started reading it.

  35. Gossip is so entrenched in our culture esp. anything with titillating sexual content. We just can’t seem to ever get out of the playground with our snickering and our finger pointing. It seems to me, Gawker thought it had a home-run except the ball (s) happened to finally hit peoples’ tolerance level for crap of that nature. Good for them.

    Radical free speech ? You’ve got to be kidding, that’s reallllly stretching it!

  36. “Rolling Stone’s failure in the University of Virginia rape story was partially born of its desire not to press its source for uncomfortable truths.”

    Oh bullshit, Robby! RS wanted to destroy the white frat boys and their fraternity and they did not care if the story was a lie. It was a hit piece looking for a victim.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.