Writer Sanctum
Other & Off-Topics => Bar & Grill [Public] => Topic started by: Shoe on February 08, 2019, 10:43:16 AM
-
I was pleased to see Bezos standing up to blackmail threats from Pecker:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/07/jeff-bezos-national-enquirer-blogpost-blackmail-claim
-
:clap:
In case you want to read the original source, this is a post to his blog:
https://medium.com/@jeffreypbezos/no-thank-you-mr-pecker-146e3922310f
-
It's huge as it stands, and could be explosive on a number of fronts. AMI has blown its granted immunities from prosecution during the Cohen investigation, which opens the door for investigations regarding AMI collusion with Trump's various agendas, and various other major and minor offenses.
Not a good time to be Trumpster. The House is going after Trump's taxes and Mueller's investigation is coming to a close. It'll be an interesting couple of months ahead.
-
It's huge as it stands, and could be explosive on a number of fronts.
<snort>
Sorry, brain in gutter.
-
I read the messages from AMI to Bezos[' attorney].
Whatever you think of Bezos, you gotta give the guy serious props for standing up to these a-holes. You also have to wonder what AMI appears to be so desperately trying to keep concealed.
So, will AMI now go ahead and publish the pics now that Bezos has not rolled over? Was it a bluff?
-
It's huge as it stands, and could be explosive on a number of fronts.
<snort>
Sorry, brain in gutter.
I'm sure AMI's Pecker will be like putty in Bezos's hands.
-
It's huge as it stands, and could be explosive on a number of fronts.
<snort>
Sorry, brain in gutter.
I'm sure AMI's Pecker will be like putty in Bezos's hands.
Yup. Ballsy choice to go for Pecker that way.
-
You people.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/CB3CJTy.gif)
-
(https://agentsofdisrupt.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/nyp_bezos_pecker.jpg) :hehe
https://nypost.com/cover/covers-for-friday-february-8-2019/ (https://nypost.com/cover/covers-for-friday-february-8-2019/)
-
Keeping it classy is a challenge when the news involves Pecker, AMI and the National Enquirer. I hope Bezos goes all the way (see?) and the Enquirer goes the way of News of the World. Ronan Farrow has also stepped up and there may well be more now that Bezos has taken a stand.
I couldn't care less about tabloid journalism. It's stupid news for stupid people. But when it becomes weaponized (such as is clearly the case with Bezos, who owns the Washinton Post), it's time for a correction.
-
The National Enquirer did solid work exposing the John Edwards scandal, and it had to fight upstream to get mainstream media attention for that story, which really was important. But all in all, yeah, tabloids aren't my favorite part of the media landscape, and the Enquirer in particular is not looking good on several fronts right now.
-
(https://agentsofdisrupt.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/nyp_bezos_pecker.jpg)
Haha. The NY Post's copywriting team probably got the afternoon off. Because that headline fell right into their lap.
-
I'm surprised that the press hasn't make the connection yet.
Jon Fine, the person who sent the email with the 'proposed terms', and the current Deputy Counsel for American Media (AMI), worked for Amazon for nine years, as Amazon’s Director of Author and Publisher Relations.
-
Jon Fine, the person who sent the email with the 'proposed terms', and the current Deputy Counsel for American Media (AMI), worked for Amazon for nine years, as Amazon’s Director of Author and Publisher Relations.
That puts it a little closer to home (as in sticking it to the former boss). I've watched and read a fair amount of the coverage and it hasn't come up. What is percolating to the surface are the Saudi connections and the possibility for racketeering charges coming on top of probable blackmail and extortion indictments and, of course, the inevitable linkages to the White House.
-
I think it's pretty scary. What AMI is trying to say is, that stealing nudie pics of someone and then ordering that 'You will now say what we want or we will release pictures of your pubic area," is a lawful practice in this country.
Today they are doing this to a newspaper owner. Tomorrow it could be to a judge, a senator, a governor,... or you.
I say no. Not in this country. We don't lower our standards so far down into the cesspool as that. IMO they should be sent to prison.
-
I think it's pretty scary. What AMI is trying to say is, that stealing nudie pics of someone and then ordering that 'You will now say what we want or we will release pictures of your pubic area," is a lawful practice in this country.
Today they are doing this to a newspaper owner. Tomorrow it could be to a judge, a senator, a governor,... or you.
I say no. Not in this country. We don't lower our standards so far down into the cesspool as that. IMO they should be sent to prison.
Okay by me.
-
I think it's pretty scary. What AMI is trying to say is, that stealing nudie pics of someone and then ordering that 'You will now say what we want or we will release pictures of your pubic area," is a lawful practice in this country.
Today they are doing this to a newspaper owner. Tomorrow it could be to a judge, a senator, a governor,... or you.
I say no. Not in this country. We don't lower our standards so far down into the cesspool as that. IMO they should be sent to prison.
Okay by me.
Okay by me, too, but if guys would stop taking pictures of their peckers and women would stop taking pictures of their hoohaas and posting them, we wouldn't have these problems. I'm sorry Mammasan, but we're already in the cesspool. What we need to do is climb out and hose ourselves down with the firehose.
-
I think it's pretty scary. What AMI is trying to say is, that stealing nudie pics of someone and then ordering that 'You will now say what we want or we will release pictures of your pubic area," is a lawful practice in this country.
Today they are doing this to a newspaper owner. Tomorrow it could be to a judge, a senator, a governor,... or you.
I say no. Not in this country. We don't lower our standards so far down into the cesspool as that. IMO they should be sent to prison.
Okay by me.
Okay by me, too, but if guys would stop taking pictures of their peckers and women would stop taking pictures of their hoohaas and posting them, we wouldn't have these problems. I'm sorry Mammasan, but we're already in the cesspool. What we need to do is climb out and hose ourselves down with the firehose.
I will never understand the nudie shots. I know people take them for themselves; years ago, an acquaintance took some with a Polaroid camera--only to be outraged because someone else "found" the photos. Maybe that someone else was snooping, or maybe the photos were lying around in plain view; I don't know which it was. But I just don't get taking the photos.
We should ask doctors if there really are significant differences worthy of these photo documentaries. I mean, could you pick your own out of a lineup?
-
I think it's pretty scary. What AMI is trying to say is, that stealing nudie pics of someone and then ordering that 'You will now say what we want or we will release pictures of your pubic area," is a lawful practice in this country.
Today they are doing this to a newspaper owner. Tomorrow it could be to a judge, a senator, a governor,... or you.
I say no. Not in this country. We don't lower our standards so far down into the cesspool as that. IMO they should be sent to prison.
Okay by me.
Okay by me, too, but if guys would stop taking pictures of their peckers and women would stop taking pictures of their hoohaas and posting them, we wouldn't have these problems. I'm sorry Mammasan, but we're already in the cesspool. What we need to do is climb out and hose ourselves down with the firehose.
I'm not a fan of nude selfies either, but I think it's a mistake to conflate the two issues. Exposing yourself may raise issues of taste and morals, but exposing someone else, particularly for the purposes of blackmail, is a very different kind of offense, one that clearly merits jail time.
One of the most concerning trends in our society is the gradual breakdown of political norms. If we start sanctioning this kind of blackmail, I fear the damage will be irreversible.
-
I'm not a fan of nude selfies either, but I think it's a mistake to conflate the two issues.
I don't think the issues are being conflated.
If someone sneaks into your house and steals your stuff, they're a thief and they should be punished for their crime. (Preferably not just punished but also required to return your stolen property or pay restitution.) If you made it easy for them to get into your house by leaving your front door unlocked, they are still a thief and they still need to be punished but you're also not the sharpest crayon in the box.
-
I'm not a fan of nude selfies either, but I think it's a mistake to conflate the two issues.
I don't think the issues are being conflated.
If someone sneaks into your house and steals your stuff, they're a thief and they should be punished for their crime. (Preferably not just punished but also required to return your stolen property or pay restitution.) If you made it easy for them to get into your house by leaving your front door unlocked, they are still a thief and they still need to be punished but you're also not the sharpest crayon in the box.
But there really are two issues. Dgcasey is talking about the public posting of nude selfies. Clearly, Bezos wasn't doing any public posting, or there wouldn't have been anything to blackmail him with. While I'd agree that private nude selfies also create a risk, I think bringing up public ones loses focus on the important issues here. The selfies in question are possibly illegally obtained and definitely being used for illegal purposes if the correspondence published by Bezos is accurate. If they were legally obtained and just reported, then the fault would lie with Bezos for creating them in the first place. But under these circumstances, it's clear the fault lies with AMI. That's where the focus really belongs.
-
I'm not a fan of nude selfies either, but I think it's a mistake to conflate the two issues.
I don't think the issues are being conflated.
If someone sneaks into your house and steals your stuff, they're a thief and they should be punished for their crime. (Preferably not just punished but also required to return your stolen property or pay restitution.) If you made it easy for them to get into your house by leaving your front door unlocked, they are still a thief and they still need to be punished but you're also not the sharpest crayon in the box.
But there really are two issues. Dgcasey is talking about the public posting of nude selfies. Clearly, Bezos wasn't doing any public posting, or there wouldn't have been anything to blackmail him with. While I'd agree that private nude selfies also create a risk, I think bringing up public ones loses focus on the important issues here. The selfies in question are possibly illegally obtained and definitely being used for illegal purposes if the correspondence published by Bezos is accurate. If they were legally obtained and just reported, then the fault would lie with Bezos for creating them in the first place. But under these circumstances, it's clear the fault lies with AMI. That's where the focus really belongs.
Sorry, I misread his "posting" as "sharing" which would encompass private or public sharing.