Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction • Hacker News Board

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#111

Post by valarauca1 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #68

nostromo wrote: post #18

Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK. I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and close down unfavor…

"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on media we should all be applauding. Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what…

Agreed. I don't understand the media's response. Gawker clearly violated the law. The headline they posted the Hulk Hogan video under admitted they were violating the law (or at least going against the council of their attorneys).

The only way this case is dangerous is if people start issuing bonds which are just a collection of partial settlements of still undecided lawsuits, funded by the purchase of said bond. This doesn't exist (as no banks are backing/issuing these bonds).

Its just media FUD due to them being held accountable for violating personal privacy laws.

If you are concerned the case cost to much here's a new issue for you to care about TORT REFORM.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#112

Post by GunboatDiplomat » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #104

GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on media we should all be applauding. Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what…

The real precedent is obviously "don't piss of billionaires because they have many ways they can crush you".

But that's always been a precedent.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#113

Post by eanzenberg » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #46

nostromo wrote: post #18

Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK. I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and close down unfavor…

I agree. I never read Gawker or any of its sites, they were all garbage. And the Hulk Hogan sex tape was scummy garbage that I never had any interest in. But it also isn't that different from lots of other celebrity leaks that have been published before which have not resulted in damages that ruined the publishers. Peter Thiel funding a lawsuit against a company he has a personal grudge against is a scary thing. What…

Let the Koch brothers sue whoever they want. They can in this country. If they want to waste their money on frivolousness and get thrown out with contempt + paying the other side's legal fees than so be it.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#114

Post by fooster » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #104

GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on media we should all be applauding. Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what…

The real precedent is obviously "don't piss of billionaires because they have many ways they can crush you".

That isn't obvious to me at least. It was morally, ethically and legally wrong to publish that video. Now they pay the price.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#115

Post by GVIrish » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #81

GVIrish wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why have a problem with that? If Gawker was not in the wrong that would've been money wasted. It's not like Hogan/Thiel wore Gawker out by whittling them down with frivolous lawsuits until they couldn't defend themselves anymore.

That's precisely what Thiel's doing though -- He just hit the jackpot with the Hogan amount. He's also funding several other suits against Gawker including one from someone who claimed to have invented email. He's like a terrible patent troll for journalism. The Gizmodo article that Thiel thinks is worth suing Gawker over: http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-inv...

Ah ok, that is not something I've seen mentioned anywhere else.

Still, Gawker is/was big enough that several frivolous lawsuits would've been unlikely to cause bankruptcy if none of them resulted in an adverse judgment. I have to think Thiel's goal was more to fire multiple shots and hope one finds its mark.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#116

Post by FireBeyond » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #68

nostromo wrote: post #18

Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK. I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and close down unfavor…

"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on media we should all be applauding. Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what…

Yes, and Gawker had purchased insurance to deal with the ramifications of their actions.

Bollea's lawyers, as funded by Thiel, then decided to specifically drop the claim that would allow the damages payout to have been made from insurance. That's fairly vindictive.

Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtless on a gay cruise, I think it's fairly safe the rest of the world didn't need Valleywag to tell them of your homosexuality.

I think a lot of what Gawker has done is repugnant.

But this is analogous to me making a bad mistake (even breaking the law) and causing a lot of damage in a car accident. In the civil trials that follow, I'm sued for damages, distress, medical bills, and the like. All well and good, as I should be.

And I have insurance. As I should have.

Except you don't like me, because I previously attacked you verbally.

So you say "Actually, your Honor, we're dropping all claims that are proximate to the accident itself, and only suing for everything that happened after the fact." which ever-so-conveniently takes my insurance off the hook for its ability to pay.

And you only do this -after- being assured you'll win, so no-one can question your real motivation (apparently, there was all this damage and distress you suffered, and you want recompense. Except now you don't, because you're removing the only realistic mechanism for you to obtain any recompense).

I don't think "secret motivations" and secret financiers should be a part of an open court system (and indeed, secretly financing lawsuits used to be and in most places is still illegal because it raises more ethical and moral questions than it answers).

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#117

Post by valarauca1 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #104

GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on media we should all be applauding. Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what…

The real precedent is obviously "don't piss of billionaires because they have many ways they can crush you".

This has been true in America as long as the robber-baron class has existed.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#118

Post by smt88 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

acheron wrote: post #91

mhurron wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue I have with it is that money from an external source that had nothing to do with the suit was funnelled in to use it as a weapon. Thiel had an issue with Gawker, Thiel should have taken it to Gawker.

The issue I have with it is that money from an external source that had nothing to do with the suit was funnelled in This is incredibly common, e.g. it's basically the entire job description of the ACLU. Why is it different in this case?

> Why is it different in this case?

The ACLU is a charitable organization, and its cases have an ideological consistency. Thiel was just trying to find anything he could on Gawker (or just bury them in frivolous lawsuits if he couldn't). The cases didn't have any ideological consistency except "kill Gawker".

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#119

Post by GunboatDiplomat » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

partiallypro wrote: post #92

nostromo wrote: post #18

Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK. I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and close down unfavor…

I'm a free speech absolutist, but what precedent does this set that's new? The person that leaked the "Fappening" items is also being prosecuted, why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture.

Because the fourth estate sees this as a threat to their interests.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#120

Post by 6stringmerc » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

mevile wrote: post #53

I don't like Gawker, but I like the idea of a billionaire being able to bankrupt news sites that he doesn't like even less.

Good thing it was just Gawker then, instead of a principled news site. Yes I understand there's collateral damage under the corporate umbrella. It happens.