Gawker Files For Bankruptcy

[JohnBrown1917]

FUCK Hulk Hogan for this among other things. That old hack ruins everything.

So you would be okay with somebody filming you having sex, without your knowledge, and then said tape being published online?

[Wells]

The sentence 'structuring your suit in a way that makes it less likely to succeed' should be parsed as making it less likely to get a positive judgement - Which it didn't.

Telling people who their posts should be read when they disagree with you is pretty dumb. He claimed damages. He structured his way, apparently in some way due to Thiel's involvement, in a manner that would be less likely to actually get him that money.

[Deleted]

Telling people who their posts should be read when they disagree with you is pretty dumb. He claimed damages. He structured his way, apparently in some way due to Thiel's involvement, in a manner that would be less likely to actually get him that money.

Yes, but the Suit itself was not made any harder.

[Wells]

Yes, but the Suit itself was not made any harder.

As the post was explained to you I assume we're both on the same page and can move forward now.

[Deleted]

As the post was explained to you I assume we're both on the same page and can move forward now.

Except you wrote this:

Given that Thiel was paying the lawyers there's a chance there that his lawyers broke some ethics rules, since structuring the suit to avoid insurance also made it harder to win.

Which is not accurate.

[Wells]

Is this really going to be your contribution? Nit picking a post now that we've cleared up what I meant?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Where are the crowd that normally says "you have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences!"

[tehealadin]

Where are the crowd that normally says "you have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences!"

They are crying "WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!" and "CENSORSHIP!" because a group which publishes articles that pander to their political leanings has gotten fucked for breaching someones right to privacy. And because that person is a white man, it makes it sting even worse.

[turboether]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

They are crying "WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!" and "CENSORSHIP!" because a group which publishes articles that pander to their political leanings has gotten fucked for breaching someones right to privacy. And because that person is a white man, it makes it sting even worse.

Ironically I think the Erin Andrews sex tape thing had some of these same posters on the side of privacy.. but here they are.

[tehealadin]

Ironically I think the Erin Andrews sex tape thing had some of these same posters on the side of privacy.. but here they are.

I also think many supported Gawker's stance on Jennifer Lawrence (which I too supported). However, the deciding factor for certain people as to whether something is good or bad seems to be gender (or gender identity).

[Strangebrew]

Ironically I think the Erin Andrews sex tape thing had some of these same posters on the side of privacy.. but here they are.

Or just look at how the fappening went down, oh and where Gawker was in outrage over those photos being leaked.

As usual, it's just your run-of-the-mill hypocrisy from that crowd.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Or just look at how the fappening went down, oh and where Gawker was in outrage over those photos being leaked.

As usual, it's just your run-of-the-mill hypocrisy from that crowd.

Yeah, bizarre how the answer to the question or morality changes depending upon the gender of said victim.

[Hooked]

Gawker can eat a fat D$%@. Good riddance.

[Danner]

Editors have to decide on a daily basis on whether to release stories that could potentially ruin the lives of the story subjects. When they release the story despite ruining lives in doing so, the value of the story must outweigh the personal costs, and what is reported must be backed by rigorous fact-checking. This is hard decisions, and it is a very subjective line between what is acceptable and not. And yet, despite them happening every day, there are very few lawsuits flying about. Because newspapers, generally, use good judgement.

IMO we as a society is best served by giving the press a very wide mandate on what they can publish. That's what the freedom of press is all about. At the same time, we expect the press to utilize that mandate responsibly, the mandate is not unlimited. If the press starts abusing this mandate, the counter-reaction will inevitably be a much narrower window of freedom for the press. Neither we in the public, nor the press, is served by this. It is in the press' best interests to err on the side of caution.

In this case, Gawker abused that mandate in ways that makes movie-villains envious. So the only possibly fair outcome is what happened. I also hope this is the last case in this class for a very long time, because I do not like the general precedent this case sets either. But, that's the counter-reaction I was talking about in action. I 100% blame Gawker, and them going bankrupt is a punishment too mild. I hope whatever gossipmonger agency replaces Gawker will use their powers more responsibly, and learn from this mistake.

The debate on whether it is right to be able to buy court victories is a good one, I think Revi has the right angle on it. If you need money to buy justice, then the system of justice is rotten. If you can buy a court outcome with money, then the system of justice is rotten. Spend effort on improving it, rather than cursing billionaires with an agency of vengeance.