If journalists were constrained by the consent of every public figure and institution they mention all you'd have is flowery propaganda.

You can see what this would look like already by searching for prnewswire https://news.google.com/publications/CAAqKQgKIiNDQklTRkFnTWF...

Companies pay to place those things and some outfits run them. It'd all look like that.

Anyways, journalist reach out for comment and are supposed to consider the response of the parties involved but that's about it.

Not publishing articles on other people’s sex lives is not “flowery propaganda”. Christ.

That was an awful thing to defend, have a sense of shame and apologise Chris.

No. Finger wag elsewhere. Some journalism looks like TMZ and Business Insider.

You know it’s wrong.

You're litigating something I had no involvement in that happened 20 years ago as if I currently have the moral agency to change the outcome.

I don't know why you're engaging this way but this conversation is definitionally a waste of time.

I’m litigating this conversation - you supported outing somebody and publishing someone else’s sex tape. As an adult human being you know this is wrong. You are mistaken and you know you are mistaken.

No. I support the concept of an open society with an institution of journalism that isn't stultified by powerful forces that seek to control information

Sometimes that's sex tapes and Epstein Island

It's ok. We're not going to resolve things here

I think you believe this stance is standing up to power. But the media is powerful in their own right and nobody needs the details of their sex lives published without their consent- not Peter Thiel, not you, and not me.

Would you then be okay with journalists publishing CSAM images & videos from the Epstein case?

Seriously? Would you be okay with a "journalist" showing the whole world your sextape?

1. I'm not a public figure

2. Sure. Have a great time

1. You don't need to be famous, how do you think blackmail works on non-famous women?

2. freaky

There's a concept of a public figure which also has law definitions.

You're conflation a bunch of things there

I can say, for example, entertainment weekly or the national enquirer is in poor taste but I didn't think they should be chased out of business

What are you trying to say? That any and all invasion of privacy is okay as long as it is in the name journalism?