You're wrong, but you can think that all day if you want.
If I TRULY was as bad as Political Correctness, Mike, I would have flagged EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that disagrees with me.
I would be trying to find ways to silence the discussion completely.
So, no, Mike.
I think that 1: you are ignoring it. 2: You're wrong for ignoring it.
Have you not seen the problems with what PC Culture has done to colleges and universities across the country? How people are literally saying "I'm not going to perform at Universities because they shut us down thanks to PC."?
FFS, look at what's happened to Milo Yiannopoulos at various universities, particularly DePaul University.
THAT is P.C. culture.
Not what I'm doing.
Learn the difference.
Anyway, I'm done here for now. Think of me what you will, I don't give a rat's ass.
I'll just leave you with a couple of Aaron Swartz quotes.
Because with that, you're saying that the Koch Brothers, Donald Trump and other Billionaires have more Speech than you do.
"Only a fool with a small mind would be more afraid of a business with less power and authority over his life than a government that kills and murders its citizens!"
Good to know that you think the Founding Fathers were fools with small minds, especially since it was how Private Businesses were screwing colonialists over (even more so than the British government) that helped push them towards revolution.
And, Mike, the biggest threat to free speech isn't the government...
It's private individuals and businesses.
Because there's no law stopping them from silencing what you say.
And P.C. culture KNOWS this and does all it can to silence people who "wrongthink".
So, not sorry, you may think of me as a hypocrite, you may not LIKE this, but...
If Gawker had stuck around for too much longer, Free Speech online would have been basically dead.
And the government wouldn't have to lift a finger to do it.
With Gawker being hit like this, making a massive blow against PC Culture and it's effects on silencing free speech, it STOPS what was going to happen.
FFS, look at Reddit, Twitter and Facebook and the controversies all three are facing right now over their censoring people, platforms, and other things that don't jive with the P.C. crowd.
Do you really want a world where your freedom of speech is limited online, not by the government, but by corporations and private entities to the point where there's hardly any place you can say what you want?
Because I sure as hell don't, and that's why I'm glad Gawker is gone.
And before you say "boycott Facebook"
I already do, what good does it do? Facebook is too damn big, you've covered this before! So have others, that not having Facebook access is basically like being cut off from everyone socially.
Make a new Facebook? Google tried that, it didn't work.
Someone may come up with something better later, but right now, what good would it do?
Besides, I have to ask, where did the judge say that Gawker and Denton couldn't post anything online or had to shut his business down or anything regarding Denton/Gawker's ability to communicate online?
Re: Re: After having thought about it some more...
"As opposed to the alternative, where courts get to decide what is and is not 'newsworthy', and therefor allowed to be reported on? Companies like Gawker can be colossal dicks to people and ruin lives with careless 'reporting', but if you don't think the courts, and by extension the government getting to decide what can be and can not be reported on isn't more dangerous to free speech you would seem to have a much higher optimism about how they'd use such a tool than I do."
Yeah. I would rather live in the alternative.
Because, in the end, the government is subject to the will of the people, corporations aren't.
Here's the funny thing...
The government doesn't need to do much to censor people anymore, corporations do it for them.
But that wasn't too long ago, that's rather fresh in people's minds.
Not too long ago, a couple of feminists ran to the U.N. to speak about "online harassment" and one of them actually said this...
"Online harassment isn't only what's illegal, but it's also the daily grind of "you suck" or "you're a liar"..."
I don't need to tell you how utterly stupid that is, to view criticism and complaints as harassment. And yet those two tried to get the U.N. to step in and put a stop to it.
Yes, I know, the U.N., by itself, has no power over the U.S., but what about the other member states? What if they followed through with that suggestion? After all, Saudi Arabia is on the Human Right's Council for the U.N.
Also, one of those two ran to the U.S. Congress, has Catherine Clark in her corner, to complain about "online harassment" there.
How about Justine Sacco? One little tweet ruined her life. The person behind ruining her life? Sam "Bring Back Bullying" Biddle.
How about Matt Taylor, as I've mentioned him before?
My point is, despite the First Amendment implications that this case has for Gawker, I can't bring myself to care like usual, because Gawker is more of a threat to free speech than the government is.
I believe it was the founder of Reddit, Aaron Swartz, who once said "I'm more worried about social media censoring people than the government. The government has to answer to the people, social media doesn't."
No matter how much you want to defend Gawker, no matter how much of an advocate of "if we don't defend free speech for everyone, then no one has it", I can't defend Gawker, not when they've shown to have no problem destroying people.
Also, as Gawker, their lackies and everyone who aligns with them are prone to say when people complain about being censored...
"It's Freedom of Speech, not Freedom from Consequences."
And also, they love to show this comic to everyone...
The world that Gawker was pushing us towards, one where we would have to police our own thoughts, otherwise we lose everything, is one I don't want to live in.
This court case can be thrown out on appeal with the appellate judges saying that it's a first amendment violation or whatever...
Though poor Eron Gjoni sure didn't get the appellate judges to rule on the 1st Amendment when his right to speak was taken away for over 18 months by the courts when his ex used the court system to shut him up. Though one of the Appellate Judges did say that the ruling was "bothering" in its 1st Amendment implications.
I'm just going to flat out state this... Between Sacco, Taylor, Thiel and Hogan, who wouldn't Gawker go after? Who was safe from them? You have to realize, Mike, that eventually they would have gone after you, one of your employees, one of your friends, etc. just to cause outrage. They wouldn't have stopped until they were forced to.