Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the points-to-ponder dept.

The fallout of the American Presidential election of 2016 continues, and many are concerned about what the eventual consequences will be. One potential member of a Trump administration has many more worried than not. Observe:

As Donald Trump commences his ghastly slouch toward Washington, a coterie of sycophants snatches at his coattails: Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie—we knew this particular trio would scurry after heightened relevance and authority. Unsurprisingly, all three have slavered their way to the president-elect's transition team, and possibly into the Cabinet. Less expected, perhaps, was billionaire PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel's recent appointment to the same advisory committee. And yet, an alliance between Trump and Thiel, however appalling, seems so fitting that hindsight renders it almost preordained.

One wonders about the temperament of the President-Elect, but even more about the basket of, um, unemployed, that swarm around him seeking positions in the new administration. Peter Thiel is well know for having bankrupted Gawker over the Hulk Hogan affair, but for personal reasons.

But Thiel did not bankroll Hogan's lawsuit in a show of fraternity. He had nurtured a grudge since December 2007, when Gawker published an article entitled, "Peter Thiel is totally gay, people." Thiel condemned Gawker for publicly outing him, though the site contended that he had already disclosed his sexuality to those in his social sphere. Although Thiel referred to Gawker as "a singularly terrible bully," he did not pursue legal action. Instead, his rancor smoldered until, nine years later, he landed a belated—but fatal—blow.

What might such vindictiveness accomplish with more than millions of dollars, but the full faith and credit of the United States, if it sought to silence criticism, whistle-blowing, truth-telling and journalism? Should Soylentils be worried?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by r1348 on Monday November 21 2016, @12:15AM

    by r1348 (5988) on Monday November 21 2016, @12:15AM (#430223)

    Does free speech now include the right to violate one's privacy for the sake of tabloid sensationalism? Because last time I checked, Gawker didn't oust a corrupt politician or a rapist actor, but someone's perfectly legal sexual orientation, violating his right to keep it private if he wishes so, and someone's perfectly legal sextape. And as much as I dislike both Thiel and Hogan, Gawker has no right to put out details of their private lives totally devoid of journalistic relevance. And fighting an invasion of privacy is VERY different from fighting freedom of speech. Does a sextape even qualify as free speech now?
    I really wish this whole alarmism around Trump would quiet down. There's a LOT wrong with the guy, like how he seems to surround himself with people hellbent on going to war with Iran. But being close to a millionaire that wishes to protect his privacy is not really what we should be concerned about, it's actually distraction from the real issues.

    Also, wasn't Trump, like, totally anti-gay, you guys?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @01:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @01:06AM (#430253)

    Also, wasn't Trump, like, totally anti-gay, you guys?

    Trump is only as anti-gay as Rudy Giuliani is, or was.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @03:10AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @03:10AM (#430293)

    > Does free speech now include the right to violate one's privacy for the sake of tabloid sensationalism?

    Thiel was not in the closet, he just didn't advertise it. That was the entire point of the article. Not sensationalism, but criticism of silicon valley for saying they are ok with the gay, but in practice discriminating against gay-owned startups. Gawker thought that as a big league venture capitalist Thiel ought to use his platform to advocate for equality in practice not just fake liberal lip service.

    Read it yourself, its just 6 paragraphs. [gawker.com]