[meko]

What happened to freedom of the press?

[apocalyptic0n3]

Freedom of the Press does not allow for breaking the law and _especially_ does not allow them to disobey a court order after their illegal activities are litigated (and, especially _especially_ does not allow them to flaunt that disobedience in the public). What Gawker did was not protected by the first amendment, nor should it be.

That being said, I also don't believe what Thiel did was ethical or just. It's a scary prospect.

[deegles]

Maybe reality is a bit more nuanced than “the press can publish anything without consequences.”

[tomhoward]

Any reasonable person understands that freedom hits limits when it unjustly impinges on other people's freedoms.

Can you name an instance where a person or body is entitled to completely unfettered freedom, regardless of harmful external consequences?

The Golden Rule is one of the most ancient and foundational principles we have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

[writepub]

The press doesn't have the freedom to blackmail and do illegal biddings for powerful people, and destroy lives when lives aren't newsworthy.

[bitwize]

Unless you post pro-Trump memes critical of CNN to Reddit, in which case CNN knows where you live, and whether or not CNN decides to publish that information depends very much on whether you apologize for your hateful stunt like a good boy.

[saagarjha]

Freedom of the press does not give you a free pass to violate people's right to privacy.