The article praises Gawker for often "punching up". For the youngens this "don't punch down" rule that someone recently invented is a load of hooey. People who control the mainstream media define up and down and tell you it is beyond the pale to make fun of any aspect of those defined as down.<p>Honestly as an older gentleman (hehe) it's shocking how badly we have clamped down on free speech. When I was young we would wonder how much wilder can the next generation of kids get? How far will the bounds of free expression be expanded.<p>The answer turned out to be "not at all". These things go in cycles and the current round of private sector driven censorship (yes, please explain to me how the private sector can't censor) is probably a reaction to the free wheeling days from the late 1950s to about the late 1980s.
Official announcement: <a href="http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-operations-next-week-1785455712" rel="nofollow">http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-operations-next-week-178...</a> (Gawker.com is a banned domain so a third-party domain is necessary for submission. Although I guess that doesn't matter anymore).<p>Note that this does not affect other sites in the Gawker network (Gizmodo, Jalopnik, etc.)
The thing I don't understand is how that jury arrived at its stratospheric damages figure. Was it designed by the jury to be high enough to put gawker out of business?<p>I mean. I have no sympathy for Gawker, and don't think there are any interesting free speech principles at stake here, I just don't understand it.
Gawker was an entertaining read and loved by many. Doesn't this 10 year long vendetta against a popular news website make Peter Thiel look like an out-of-touch evil Bond villain. I'm not saying he is one, but to use a Trumpism, many people are saying he is.
Recent discussion about the bankruptcy and sale: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11877814" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11877814</a>