Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 566 posts

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

#181

Post by cm2187 »

pcurve wrote: post #33
cm2187 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting the Hogan suit was groundless?

It wasn't, but the damage amount is excessive.

I would say the contrary would be problematic.

What if this organisation could publish any dirt on you, could publish your most intimate pictures or details and if you were suing them, they would be fined only $10k, which they wouldn't care about because they make a lot more money abusing people?

I would say this would be justice and ordinary citizens being helpless against big business.

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

#182

Post by idlewords »

taejo wrote: post #163
smt88 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy One man's libel/slander is another man's investigate journalism ("muckraking" in the US). In this particular case, Gawker wasn't guilty of either libel or slander because they didn't publish anything about Hogan that was false. > it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers It's actually much harder to win a libel/s…

Your comment exposed me to the big gap between the meanings of muckraker in US and UK English: 1. (US) One who investigates and exposes issues of corruption that often violate widely held values; e.g. one who exposes political corruption or the poor conditions in prisons. 2. (Britain) A sensationalist, scandal-mongering journalist, one who is not driven by any social principles.

The term was coined as a perjorative (by Teddy Roosevelt) and then co-opted as a term of honor by the journalists he was attacking.

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

#183

Post by BryantD »

lujim wrote: post #76
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.

Well Gawker isn't exactly the Wall Street Journal and they didn't get the bankruptcy treatment for having a differing political opinion or some different viewpoint. They were bullying people and now they are getting bullied.

False equivalency. They bullied Thiel, and made him unhappy. I don't see any evidence that his ability to do business has been affected.

Thiel has now made it impossible for Gawker to continue as a company.

The effect of the bullying is vastly different.

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

#184

Post by icebraining »

bra-ket wrote: post #75
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.

It's called 'maintenance' and it was made illegal under common law of England 500 years ago http://overlawyered.com/2016/05/champerty-maintenance-explai...

Yes, in a time before judicial independence and separation of powers were implemented.

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

#185

Post by idlewords »

lotso wrote: post #160
whack wrote: post #54

Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could have better helped inform the public. The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such re…

The Hogan lawsuit has nothing to do with libel or slander.

Keep the facts out of this!

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

whack wrote: post #54

Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could have better helped inform the public. The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such re…

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by bkeroack »

whack wrote: post #54

Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could have better helped inform the public. The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such re…

False. Statements must be untrue to be either libel (written) or slander (verbal). The sex tape in question was real.

I would not be so quick to celebrate. This case has demonstrated that one or two very powerful, wealthy individuals (Peter Thiel et al) are able to destroy a successful business and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed.

(It's worth noting that what Gawker originally wrote about Thiel was also apparently true.)

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

#189

Post by smt88 »

igorgue wrote: post #30

Thin skinned billionaires...

I personally know several gay men who were outed against their will. In some cases it ruined their lives. One committed suicide. They didn't have billions to insulate them from the harm it caused them.

None of them went on revenge campaigns for being outed, not even with their meager, non-billionaire resources.

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

#190

Post by calbear81 »

whack wrote: post #54

Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could have better helped inform the public. The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such re…

Can you cite any examples of libel and slander that have been published by Gawker?
Post reply on HN