Opinion · Opinion · Science · Health · Arts · Arts · Photos · Style · Style · Video · Most Emailed. More Sections. Automobiles · Blogs · Books · Food.
Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only.
Opinion peter thiel online privacy debate wont with gawker -- travelingShopping for a favorable venue, and convincing one jury in a civil case does not make for a very compelling argument of "illegality. I think gawker is getting exactly what they deserve. But it seems I can agree with his support of the IPPA. As for selling something, it is already a great motive to make people lie and present the facts in a distorted way, withhold precious information, etc about a product. The motives of the arguer are also important --. Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.
Thiel's capacity to reason and function might be genius in some ways and crippled in. So you're saying it's good to examine the hypocrisy of someone's argument, because of the possibility that there's contradictory facts or implications that the arguer is holding back on us? I'm women have first date saying to not support the proposed bill, I'm saying I don't understand how people defend Thiel's actions when he actively supports a guy who wants to change libel laws. I also think it's noteworthy that the fact that the person who actually breached Hogan's -trust- was "punished" so lightly granted, he settled, but I wonder how much Hogan would have settled with Gawker for, with and without Thiel's involvement. Tell us what you think.
Flying Seoul: Opinion peter thiel online privacy debate wont with gawker
- The firewall is a relic of a lucrative business model that imploded.
- Love confessions roommate hook
- BEST INNOCENT VIRGIN OTHER EROTIC STORIES TORRI TUMBLES
- I'm not sure what is the example supposed to prove.
- Blotter wont kids under adults
Opinion peter thiel online privacy debate wont with gawker tri
It is a matter the public has an interest in. I don't particularly disagree with anything you said but even a privacy intruding clock can be right twice a day. You can find cases where doing it isn't that unreasonable. In case of Gawker, it was someone who was feeding on destroying the private life of people in order to sell ads. That is the kind of clear moral line that Gawker and publishers like it have sought to blur. But at least acknowledge that it's a heuristic and stop trying to claim it as a solution. I'm not trying to play a gotcha game. Peter Thiel intend to be untouchable.