post by samYam at Sep 20,2008 8:26pm edited Sep 20,2008 8:27pm
The premise for his argument makes total sense, and because of that he believes it. But he does not know the law here and it protects Gawker, a news organization, because of the first amendment. I've recently run into something very similar with a blog I do and have received a letter from a solicitors office trying to muscle me into taking an article down, telling me I have committed libel and am smearing the person who hired them. But all I did was get the article from a different site, and reposted it, unedited. So some judges and lawyers that I know have said I am perfectly within my right to do it, as Gawker is to repost the Palin e-mails.
So... sorry Bill but you're wrong, even though you make a decent argument this time.
So by his own logic, the entire news system should be charged... (there are at least a dozen instances of "stolen" information that was leaked to the press and then exploited)