I kind of like the 'fark you' statement that comes with not only posting the image that caused a cease and desist, but also posting the cease and desist.

GAT_00: I kind of like the 'fark you' statement that comes with not only posting the image that caused a cease and desist, but also posting the cease and desist.

Yeah, any time you can establish that you're aware of what you're doing and doing it anyway despite legal ramifications, you've got to do it.

I think Gawker knows they're civilly liable, but not criminally liable (freedom of the press and all that), and they're figuring that they'll make more money publishing this stuff than they'll have to pay in a civil settlement.

At least now there is a far smaller chance of the image being scattered all over the net compared to a polite "Would you take the images down? What you are doing is illegal and we'd rather not get lawyers involved. Fox News"

Yanks_RSJ: GAT_00: I kind of like the 'fark you' statement that comes with not only posting the image that caused a cease and desist, but also posting the cease and desist.

Yeah, any time you can establish that you're aware of what you're doing and doing it anyway despite legal ramifications, you've got to do it.

I'm sure they knew one was inevitable with their little mole.

Looking like a good time there. Makes me wonder where he went wrong, or alternatively- how much of his current schtick is an act.

"Gawker should immediately stop blah, blah, blah..."

So ... what does the word "should" mean, when a lawyer uses it like this? "Come on, guys, you really should stop this... Hey, guys??? Please?? Stoooooopp...?'

Or perhaps 'yeah, anything we write in this letter doesn't have the force of law or anything, but we hope you're naïve enough to be frigtened by our impressive letterhead'?

Skr: Looking like a good time there. Makes me wonder where he went wrong, or alternatively- how much of his current schtick is an act.

Me, I looked at the photo and thought "god, they all look like those annoying arrogant cocaine-y boomer assholes you used to find under every rock 30 years ago", and everything seemed to fall into place.

Umm, Gawker, whats the point?

The man is a professional media agitator and takes controversial sides on issues in order to provoke a response.

And in the 80s, he knew how to party.

Larry Mahnken: I think Gawker knows they're civilly liable, but not criminally liable (freedom of the press and all that), and they're figuring that they'll make more money publishing this stuff than they'll have to pay in a civil settlement.

They weren't charged in the iPhone leak case. I don't think they get to go to Apple media events anymore though.

Kyro: Bill O'Reilly puts a bad taste in my mouth as much as anybody, but why is this even a topic of conversation? Oh snap, our pundit was once in close proximity with a topless woman. SCANDAL.

Apparently, you missed last week's big expose: He took a shiat once (maybe, they didn't have any proof, but they know his floor at work has a bathroom). I still can't believe a guy threw away his career over $5,000.

Kyro: Bill O'Reilly puts a bad taste in my mouth as much as anybody, but why is this even a topic of conversation? Oh snap, our pundit was once in close proximity with a topless woman. SCANDAL.

I think it has something to do with the sanctimonious holier-than-thou persona that people like OReilly adopt in order to appeal to socially conservative viewers/listeners.

Personally I don't care what he does. But when you pretend you are better than everyone else. It kind of matters what you have done yourself.

Gawker vs. BillO. Hmm.

I'm rooting for the asteroid to obliterate us all.

Skr: Looking like a good time there. Makes me wonder where he went wrong, or alternatively- how much of his current schtick is an act.

What do you mean? Republicans really know how to party and if their Catholic extra party points.

The next day they will go to Church have a sip of wine given to them by a Priest and write a check...live and let live.

Kyro: Bill O'Reilly puts a bad taste in my mouth as much as anybody, but why is this even a topic of conversation? Oh snap, our pundit was once in close proximity with a topless woman. SCANDAL.

It's because of the views he claims to represent.

just for good measure... smarmy uber-conservative with women of questionable morals.

KimNorth: Skr: Looking like a good time there. Makes me wonder where he went wrong, or alternatively- how much of his current schtick is an act.

What do you mean? Republicans really know how to party and if their Catholic extra party points.

The next day they will go to Church have a sip of wine given to them by a Priest and write a check...live and let live.

Gah I keep forgetting about the hypocrisy. I need to start taking better notes.

They failed to name documents on cell phones/smart phones or text messages on cell phones/smart phones in the cease and desist order. I love how they included their 'you might get sued for hiring this asshole' warning too. The law firm they hired is phoning it in since they know the suits Fox wants to bring are bunk. Easy money is nice and you can let a junior associate deal with most of the details.

Hey guys, some crap isn't covered under the confidentiality statement in the employee handbook. You paid this guy crap and he told everyone else how crappy you were. Get over it and realize that he might be smart enough to have only released non-protected material that you can't sue over. The judge might just laugh at you for trying to file and let this guy will get to tell Gawker all about it.

\made your bed?
\\NOW SLEEP IN IT!

there's another one...

The only noteworthy in TFA is its comment section.

GAT_00: I kind of like the 'fark you' statement that comes with not only posting the image that caused a cease and desist, but also posting the cease and desist.

But the letter clearly states it is NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

LOL.

By the way, is it just me or does O'Reilly appear to be paying a lot more attention to the bros than the ho?

Let me answer this for everyone, once and for all -

NO.

farkityfarker: GAT_00: I kind of like the 'fark you' statement that comes with not only posting the image that caused a cease and desist, but also posting the cease and desist.

But the letter clearly states it is NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

LOL.

By the way, is it just me or does O'Reilly appear to be paying a lot more attention to the bros than the ho?

They sent it to a news outlet. Too f*n bad.

Ah - a foursome. Don't Bogart that loufa, my friend.

Looks more like hes with the guy on his right.
/which might make him more to the left.

This is some pretty shoddy journalism by Gawker. "Half-Naked"? How do we know she wasn't fully naked? If I was Pappa Bear I'd make sure to clear that up. Three dudes one chick. Same time or in a row? Bill should be claiming firsties on that one. We are assuming woman, but we can't see the bottom half.... not to start speculation. Speaking of which, what did happen to her after this photo was taken, or in 1990? I am just asking questions.

enry: Gawker vs. BillO. Hmm.

I'm rooting for the asteroid to obliterate us all.

I'm still rooting for a zombie apocalypse.

OMG, that means that he is OUT of Faux News and Madow becomes President.

Larry Mahnken: I think Gawker knows they're civilly liable, but not criminally liable (freedom of the press and all that), and they're figuring that they'll make more money publishing this stuff than they'll have to pay in a civil settlement.

When you hire someone whose job is to get information from their current employer and give it to you, you are going to face criminal charges. Freedom of the press doesn't cover that.

Sofa King Smart: there's another one...

[bp2.blogger.com image 400x293]

That was in Atlanta about 20 years ago.

to add to the 'experience' listen to some of these audio clips from his book while looking at the picture... off with those pants!

village voice clips from 'Those who Trespass' audio book (new window)

Between the scandal with his producer and some dirty parts of his books, we already knew this guy was a horndog. But it's going to be fun to watch him squirm anyhow, now that the official Republican party platform is that anyone who does something like this is a horrible moral deviant.

That chick is sexy as anything.

Great clown Pagliacci's pick-me-up: This is some pretty shoddy journalism by Gawker. "Half-Naked"? How do we know she wasn't fully naked? If I was Pappa Bear I'd make sure to clear that up. Three dudes one chick. Same time or in a row? Bill should be claiming firsties on that one. We are assuming woman, but we can't see the bottom half.... not to start speculation. Speaking of which, what did happen to her after this photo was taken, or in 1990? I am just asking questions.

He doesn't seem the least bit interested in her. Actually - they've all shoved her off to the side.

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!

/chick's hot, where's the NSFW version?

DerAppie: At least now there is a far smaller chance of the image being scattered all over the net compared to a polite "Would you take the images down? What you are doing is illegal and we'd rather not get lawyers involved. Fox News"

The TL;DR version, Streisand Effect

tenpoundsofcheese: Larry Mahnken: I think Gawker knows they're civilly liable, but not criminally liable (freedom of the press and all that), and they're figuring that they'll make more money publishing this stuff than they'll have to pay in a civil settlement.

When you hire someone whose job is to get information from their current employer and give it to you, you are going to face criminal charges. Freedom of the press doesn't cover that.

What criminal charges do you suppose Mr. Denton is facing?