Gawker Files For Bankruptcy

[Mahourai]

Gawker is a shitty website.
They deserved to lose their case.
Gawker media runs several websites that aren't shitty.
Some good people lost jobs.
115 million in damages is absurd for the sex tape.
Laws that require as much as 50 million in bond pending appeal are an affront to the right to appeal.
Peter Thiel is a direct danger to a free press.

These are some scorching hot takes. Can you please work Trump in here somewhere?

[Wells]

Hopefully the good ones get bought by none shitty owners. (If we are talking about the same sites)

Probably. The loss of independence will make them different though.

[hrugner]

Ghengis Khan was by no means a right wing conservative if you actually studied or read any of his life or adventures.

Wait, Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure doesn't portray him accurately? I, for one, am shocked.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Yeah I mean he only waged a Count of Montre Cristo level vendetta against an independant media outlet because he didn't like them.

So yeah, I'd say him, and more importantly the other people who will see his success and replicate it, are a danger to a free press.

- - - Updated - - -



2/10, too obvious.

Other "Peter Theils" will only be able to replicate the Gawker episode if another independent news media posts something that is private, that a media outlet has no rights to, and constantly ignores court orders to take it down and cease and desist.


OH NOES!! MUH JOURNALISTIC RIGHTS!!!!

[Independent voter]

LOOKS LIKE GAWKER GOT CAUGHT UP IN A LITTLE HULKMANIA BROTHER.

Seriously though, nothing of value has been lost. Gawker was one of the worst things on the Internet, and one of the worst things to happen to Western culture in centuries.

Yeah, the only downside I can see is it might make legit journalists and reporters a little more cautious.

[Wells]

Other "Peter Theils" will only be able to replicate the Gawker episode if another independent news media posts something that is private, that a media outlet has no rights to, and constantly ignores court orders to take it down and cease and desist.

Nope. Mother Jones ended up spending absurd amounts of money defending themselves against lawsuits from a man who they insulted and ultimately were not found to have done anything wrong. He's since offered money to anyone who wants to sue them as well.

Innocence is only so much protect from deep pockets.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, the only downside I can see is it might make legit journalists and reporters a little more cautious.

Why? What this teaches journalists is to be careful about who you upset, not what you say. There's a difference.

[Xisa]

Yeah, the only downside I can see is it might make legit journalists and reporters a little more cautious.

They could have avoided the entire issue by listening to the court order to remove the video.

If they'd kept up the videos of Jennifer Lawrence from The Fappening, they'd have been crucified.
Some has-been dude wrestler? Screw him, he's not a person and it's getting views. It stays!

They got everything they deserved.

[Jotaux]

Second, if this was not clear enough, the kind of people who use ''SJW'' all the time is usually so much to the right (or rather, posing, to look tough and manly) that compared to them, yeah, most of the Republican caucus is made up of Hanoi Janes.

I'm fairly left wing, voted liberal but was debating between them and the NDP. I also think Bernie would make a great president. Perhaps it is better not to generalize.

[THE Bigzoman]

And nothing of value was lost.

But no seriously, their liabilities relative to their assets implies in part that they made nothing of value.

[Xisa]

And nothing of value was lost.

But no seriously, their liabilities relative to their assets implies in part that they made nothing of value.

Pretty much this.

[THE Bigzoman]

"Saying a news site should sink is suppressing free speech".

Yeah, call me whenever I'm actively trying to make that a reality instead of expressing the value t place value on their speech

[Wells]

And nothing of value was lost.

But no seriously, their liabilities relative to their assets implies in part that they made nothing of value.

How do you figure? Their valuation prior to the suit was 250 million.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Nope. Mother Jones ended up spending absurd amounts of money defending themselves against lawsuits from a man who they insulted and ultimately were not found to have done anything wrong. He's since offered money to anyone who wants to sue them as well.

Innocence is only so much protect from deep pockets.

So this case happened before Peter Thiel?

Uh, okay.

Yes, people who feel they have been wronged and go through the process of suing should be given the chance. If I am not mistaken filling frivously lawsuits is against the law to prevent this abuse.

So, I am not sure what you have issue with.

The judicial system already has checks and balances to stop and prevent what you claim will happen.

If someone legitimately has a reason to sue, and someone else wants to foot the bill, for whatever reason, they should be able to do that.

It is for the courts to decide the legitimacy, not you are I.

[Rudkobing]

Ha Ha Ha. Eat it, Gawker.

[Wells]

So this case happened before Peter Thiel?

Uh, okay.

Yes, people who feel they have been wronged and go through the process of suing should be given the chance. If I am not mistaken filling frivously lawsuits is against the law to prevent this abuse.

So, I am not sure what you have issue with.

The judicial system already has checks and balances to stop and prevent what you claim will happen.

If someone legitimately has a reason to sue, and someone else wants to foot the bill, for whatever reason, they should be able to do that.

It is for the courts to decide the legitimacy, not you are I.

How is this tough to understand? The problem here is very rich men funding proxy suits to eat up money and ties up their target's time, even if they haven't done anything wrong this still costs them substantial amounts of time. We know this because it already happened. Mother Jones won and it still cost them exorbitant amounts of money to defend themselves.

[Nadiru]

Yeah I mean he only waged a Count of Montre Cristo level vendetta against an independant media outlet because he didn't like them.

So yeah, I'd say him, and more importantly the other people who will see his success and replicate it, are a danger to a free press.

On a media outlet which outed him as gay, last I recall. If that's your level of "free press" I'd hate to see what you consider "poor journalism."

[prwraith]

Wooooot. maybe kotaku can be dragged down with it. Worthless websites

[Wells]

On a media outlet which outed him as gay, last I recall. If that's your level of "free press" I'd hate to see what you consider "poor journalism."

His loathing for Gawker Media actually predates that, to Valleywag's unfavorable coverage.

[Nadiru]

His loathing for Gawker Media actually predates that, to Valleywag's unfavorable coverage.

Unless he was going around funding anti-Gawker lawsuits prior to that, I'm gonna posit that being outed on the internet is our causal mechanism on this. And frankly, I can't blame him, that behavior is what experts are calling "fucked up shit, son."

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

How is this tough to understand? The problem here is very rich men funding proxy suits to eat up money and ties up their target's time, even if they haven't done anything wrong this still costs them substantial amounts of time. We know this because it already happened. Mother Jones won and it still cost them exorbitant amounts of money to defend themselves.

Wells, this may come as a shock to you, but I can say you probably are better educated and knowledgeable about a few things than I am, so that being so, if Mother Jones thought they were unnecessarily being sued and the lawsuit was frivolous, do they not have the ability to counter sue based on the frivolity of the suit? If they had evidence, why didn't they? If there were no evidence, than our judicial system is working as intended, no?

Secondly, how often does this happen?

You said this person sued Mother Jones one time and he lost. He then offered to bank roll anyone else who had a suit against Mother Jones. If he has so much money, why isn't he filing lawsuits constantly against Mother Jones?

The only answer I can think of is he doesn't have any grounds to file suit against them without facing some sort of penalty for doing so, right?

The fact that he has stopped litigating against them even with his tremendous wealth proves the system is functioning.

You make it seem like these click bait sites are a vital and necessary fabric of our media and fourth estate, when they are a dime a dozen disposable rag sites that create the most sensationalist and hyperbolic articles and headlines to garner traffic to their websites.