Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote: (As an aside, I find the mention of "post-pubescent female nipple" laughable. One reason is as if censoring only the nipple really makes much of a difference. But the other is that distinguishing between the male and female nipples in general should bring into question Equal Protection Clause problems--but that's a debate for another day.)

The people in the Hot Girls thread are going to love this.

Simple Torture wrote:

Green Habit wrote: (As an aside, I find the mention of "post-pubescent female nipple" laughable. One reason is as if censoring only the nipple really makes much of a difference. But the other is that distinguishing between the male and female nipples in general should bring into question Equal Protection Clause problems--but that's a debate for another day.)

The people in the Hot Girls thread are going to love this.

B will especially love it if we get fuzzy with the "post-pubescent" line.

Simple Torture wrote:

Green Habit wrote:(As an aside, I find the mention of "post-pubescent female nipple" laughable. One reason is as if censoring only the nipple really makes much of a difference. But the other is that distinguishing between the male and female nipples in general should bring into question Equal Protection Clause problems--but that's a debate for another day.)

The people in the Hot Girls thread are going to love this.

I see that B set the rule in there at a maximum of 49% nipple. It's fascinating how society is slowly but steadily getting over its hangup in this regard. Once the Supreme Court membership is favorable, it should be a slam dunk to demonstrate how any legal actions in this regard violate the Equal Protection Clause via discrimination on the basis of sex.

tragabigzanda wrote:Am I a total plebe if I'm still getting turned on by nipples?

No, nipples are great. I have three.

tragabigzanda wrote:Yea, I agree with your thinking here. But what about that famous Jenny Jones case, in which one guest killed another guest after it was revealed on air that the victim had a homosexual attraction to the killer? From wiki:

In 1999, the Amedure family sued The Jenny Jones Show, Telepictures, and Warner Bros. for the ambush tactics and their negligent role that led to Amedure's death. In May, the jury awarded the Amedures $25 million. The jury found that The Jenny Jones Show was both irresponsible and negligent, contending that the show intentionally created an explosive situation without due concern for the possible consequences. Time Warner's defense attorney later claimed the verdict would cause a chilling effect on the industry.

The judgment was later overturned by the Michigan Court of Appeals in a 2-to-1 decision. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Ok, so it was overturned, but I'm thinking there must be other examples of a media outlet being found responsible for a crime the resulted from their story?

Here's the text of ruling that overturned that verdict. Seems like the First Amendment wasn't even addressed here--they simply found that no negligence took place. Makes sense as long as it stayed in the Michigan courts, it would have been interesting to see if WB would have made it an issue if they had to take it to SCOTUS.

A more recent case along these lines I can think of was Grantland's article on Dr. V. As far as I can tell no legal action has been sought on this one.

http://grantland.com/features/a-mysteri ... club-dr-v/

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

tragabigzanda wrote:I just keep coming back to this quandary: If the story doesn't serve an obvious public good, than it's basically tabloid fodder. And if it's tabloid fodder, then should it even be protected under the 1st Amendment?

Define "obvious public good". It's something that people will have multiple varying definitions on.

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I just keep coming back to this quandary: If the story doesn't serve an obvious public good, than it's basically tabloid fodder. And if it's tabloid fodder, then should it even be protected under the 1st Amendment?

Define "obvious public good". It's something that people will have multiple varying definitions on.

kind of like obscenity isn't it?

Electromatic wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I just keep coming back to this quandary: If the story doesn't serve an obvious public good, than it's basically tabloid fodder. And if it's tabloid fodder, then should it even be protected under the 1st Amendment?

Define "obvious public good". It's something that people will have multiple varying definitions on.

kind of like obscenity isn't it?

I would say so, yes. Miller v. California is one of the worst SCOTUS precedents still on the books, and thankfully legislative and executive branches haven't been going after it as much as they used to.

RIP.
Even if you hated Gawker and like this news on a practical basis, the means that it was done are still scary.

tragabigzanda wrote:To be honest GH, I think the idea of a news outlet invading someone's privacy for clicks is more scary to me than their shutdown by an angry billionaire. But I've enjoyed this discussion with you -- you've helped me think through some of the constitutional stuff and how it relates to this.

I'm glad you've enjoyed it!

Let's step aside from Thiel vs. Gawker for a moment. The general concept of an angry billionaire shutting down websites through the legal system should give us considerable pause. This isn't the only instance: Idaho's new richest man Frank VanderSloot tried the same tactic against Mother Jones over something less sympathetic.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/1 ... ca-lawsuit

Apparently Peter hasn't heard of something called archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/*/gawker.com
I suppose this would be an appropriate time to also note that Gawker was on the Kevin Spacey beat two years ago:

http://defamer.gawker.com/people-keep-t ... 1686507320

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Green Habit wrote:Apparently Peter hasn't heard of something called archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/*/gawker.com

I suppose this would be an appropriate time to also note that Gawker was on the Kevin Spacey beat two years ago:

http://defamer.gawker.com/people-keep-t ... 1686507320

If I understood correctly, acquiring Gawker would prevent further discovery/ the possibility of a counter suit.

That said, good riddance to Gawker.

Were there claims of aggressive action by Mr. Theil that made his sexuality newsworthy? Clearly, claims that Spacey tried to assault people would be newsworthy. Is this not a fair test for public figures?