Who gets to decide what is arbitrary?

We are not so desperate that we must accept evil just because it comes with a small payment of good. You can have the good on its own. That reporter or his team could just as easily have found that story while working for a different publisher.

> Yesterday the Hon. Pamela A.M. Campbell, a circuit court judge in Pinellas County, Fla., issued an order compelling Gawker to remove from the internet a video of Hulk Hogan fucking his friend's ex-wife, as well as a 1,400-word narrative of the video written by former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio and 466 user-submitted comments. Here is why we are refusing to comply.

https://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hog...

I wish there was any way for the commoners to make public policy proposals. Imagine like a reddit for discussion of policy, but where the most upvoted things actually got looked at by people in decision-making positions.

It's very frustrating to me that I sometimes see really deep, interesting analysis of issues (and actual back-and-forth exchanges!) on reddit and never any such thing from actual politicians. Look at this thread here~ [0] Honestly insightful and meaningful discourse that anyone can participate in. They took what sounded on the surface like a great idea and pointed out critical flaws, and suggested superior alternatives. The constructiveness of the thread astounds me.

I wish this type of thing actually connected to the government somehow, like in Ender's Game where Ender's siblings construct internet aliases and join policy conversations, slowly gaining influence and popularity through their rhetoric and insight.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aicgpz/serious_a...

But seriously, I actually got caught up in Amazon’s anti-fake-review dragnet and my account cannot review anymore without possibility of appeal. Being falsely accused made me irritated just enough to boycott all Amazon services.

At first it was tough, but then I realized I spend money on good quality products now, and, because I either have to wait for shipping from other suppliers or go in-person to a store, I’ve eliminated online impulse buys. It’s actually amazing how much fake or cheap stuff there is on Amazon.

1. Don't make an enemy of a powerful person (Outing Peter Thiel as gay) 2. Don't publish a video of Hulk Hogan

The court case was about #2 but Gawker's real error was #1.

Whereas in the bezos case both the legal wrong and the enemy making involve the same person: Bezos

So any outcomes are more direct. Not everyone can afford private investigars like Bezos, but anyone will be able to see if legal precedent comes from it. And PR precedent.

That would change future negotiating leverages. Before, people feared the blackmail. After, they can more credibly know that the blackmailers risk legal jeopardy. The blackmailers will know this too and possibly refrain.

Finally, for PR, people's risk calculus may change. It Bezos comes out a hero, others too may be able to look heroic while publicly resisting blackmail, if their case parallels this one. (I.e. Bezos already is getting divorced, so the blackmailers only have public embarrassment as a tool)

I'm no friend of the National Enquirer, but we should make sure we're talking about facts here..

Do you have any proof for your assertion that they're "funded by politics aka American GDP aka your tax dollars"?

And there's a huge difference between a neutral third party reporting on something and just seeing one first-hand account of something. With your logic anyone reporting on Trump is just committing "blogspam", with his tweets being the beginning and end of the truth.

> A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, [..] by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

[..]

> 5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;

[..]

> Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

WA defines "extortion" pretty sparely as "knowingly to obtain or attempt to obtain by threat property or services of the owner, and specifically includ[ing] sexual favors". It is a class C felony when the threat is "(e) To expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or (f) To reveal any information sought to be concealed by the person threatened". (see https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.130 )

So it seems pretty safe to say that AMI's behavior is a class C felony under Washington law _if_, by making the threat, they were attempting to obtain any "services" from Jeff Bezos. What did they ask for?

> 1. A full and complete mutual release of all claims that American Media, on the one hand, and Jeff Bezos and Gavin de Becker (the “Bezos Parties”), on the other, may have against each other.

> 2. A public, mutually-agreed upon acknowledgment from the Bezos Parties, released through a mutually-agreeable news outlet, affirming that they have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AM’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces, and an agreement that they will cease referring to such a possibility.

(see https://medium.com/@jeffreypbezos/no-thank-you-mr-pecker-146... )

I don't see how this could fail to be criminal. Getting someone to do what you want by threatening to print embarrassing pictures of them is the prototype for the crime of blackmail.

IANAL, no evidence, just opinions, etc.

But I attended public school in that town, I attended church in that town, I volunteered at the community center, I basically spent every afternoon after class at the public library in that town. I learned to play harmonica on the sidewalk of that town. I knew the names of the old people and disabled people who hung out in the same places I did, places that wouldn't kick you out for not having extra money to spend. So yeah, I knew families that loved to brag about how they support small business by buying $40 books and statues of gnomes made by a well known artist. They usually sent their kids to private schools and had to drive in 15 min from mcmansions in a private neighborhood b/c as much as they enjoyed spending money in my town, they wouldn't dream of living in my part of town, next to the old mill houses and apartments. (That's all starting to change with some gentrification though.)

So yeah, people who don't have the luxury of being loose with money are absolutely locals - and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Here's the thing: that era of town heart, like a beautiful sunset, is only charming if it's natural. Keeping an inefficient system alive at the point of the gun (for, and here's where my libertarian stripes are showing, that is what a tax necessarily entails in the end calculus) robs said system of whatever aesthetic pleasantness it used to hold. I would feel good being the proprietor of a clean, trustworthy and useful small shop in a town. I would feel much less good if I knew my existence was only due to charity or due to the novelty of having a small shop in town, essentially making me into a tourist attraction.

14/ Was AMI's action slimy? Yes.

Is it consistent with some of the questionable practices that AMI engaged in on behalf of Trump and others? Yes.

But is this the sort of case federal prosecutors would charge as extortion? No.