only thing that would salvage my skepticism of thiel's motivations is if he were behind a series of suits against literal revenge porn sites
-
-
En réponse à @sarahjeong
but his impact litigation is gawker-specific. The American Civil Letssuegawkerintotheground Union
3 réponses 2 Retweets 21 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
I don't know if there's a sensible rule that would curb this kind of thing. There might not be.
5 réponses 0 Retweet 10 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
This might just be an inevitable consequence of an adversarial court system under plutocracypic.twitter.com/ImhP7shLwQ
6 réponses 4 Retweets 37 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
I have to disagree. I think you are confusing procedure & substance. If Gawker's actions were legitimately tortious, no problem
1 réponse 0 Retweet 2 j'aime -
En réponse à @brianlfrye
I'm not discussing procedure or substance. I'm discussing policy implications.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 3 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
Policy has to address either procedure or substance.
@sarahjeong2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @brianlfrye
No, it doesn't. Because it doesn't have to deal with the courts at all, it can create law or quasi-law anew.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong @brianlfrye
It can also point to something broken without making specific recommendations.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
Frankly, I am uncomfortable with the outcome myself. But I think that is about the substance of defamation law.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
I disagree. I think @grimmelm's tweets on the matter are on the money.
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.