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

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

#301

Post by trsohmers » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

notcotsotrot wrote: post #243

viggity wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they didn't say anything bad about Thiel, the reason he went after them is because they outted him as gay.

Incorrect, that's his sub-excuse. The actual reason is because of Valleywag reporting on e.g. his embarrassing failure of a hedge fund.

Failure of a hedge fund during the worldwide financial crash, out of which he started two new investment entities (Thiel Capital and Mithril) which are alive and well.

I can't understand why people are so upset about a third party paying legal expenses... what do you think the ACLU, EFF, and tons of other organizations and private citizens (either in individual or collective form) do? A jury (impartial to Thiel and unaware of his involvement) found Gawker and Nick Denton personally guilty. Denton himself is worth over $100 million (Gawker itself was valued according to reports to the court at $80 million, so he has plenty of assets outside Gawker), so this isn't a story of a big financier ganging up on a "little guy" that people are trying to make it out to be.

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

#302

Post by leothekim » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

The thing I have trouble reconciling is that the merits of the case were judged in a court of law and found in favor for Hogan and against Gawker. AFAICT, the fact that Thiel was funding Hogan's case only became widely known after the judgment. Honest question - would there have been the same judgment against Gawker if Thiel didn't fund the case?

I also have trouble understanding how what Gawker did as ethical journalism, relativistically speaking or otherwise. It's hard to compare a sex tape of a former wrestler to uncovering scandals in a major institution, like the Washington Post did for Watergate, the NY Times did with the Pentagon Papers, the Boston Globe with the sexual predation in the Catholic church, or even what every major media outlet published with the Monica Lewinsky affair. Publishing this sex tape was for clickbait, which is purely about metrics and much less about holding our institutions and public figures accountable for unethical or illegal activity.

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

#303

Post by ThrustVectoring » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #24

corin_ wrote: post #4

'The media company [...] had assets of $50 to $100 million and liabilities of $100 million to $500 million, filings showed.' http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/10/gawker-media-files-for-ch-11-...

Does this mean the only sensible bid is between $0 to -$450M?

No, because the liabilities are getting discharged with the results of the sale. Essentially, Gawker isn't selling itself. Gawker is essentially exchanging itself for the liabilities to their creditors, and the creditors are then selling it in lieu of Gawker paying their debts.

Really simplified example: suppose you're 12, you own a lemonade stand, and you owe your dad $200 (secured against the lemonade stand). It's not going well, so you go through bankruptcy - dad now owns the lemonade stand, you no longer owe dad any money, and he goes and sells it for whatever he can get (say, $100). $100 is a sensible bid for the stand because the debt to the kid's dad has already been discharged.

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

#304

Post by troisx » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #236

bkeroack wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He was videotaped without his knowledge in a situation he had every reason to expect was private. If you then obtain that tape and publish it you're scum. The livelihoods of the employees were ruined by their idiot bosses who thought it would be a good idea to publish the video, not by the persons defending their privacy.

Actually the judge wouldn't let Gawker present evidence from the FBI that both Hogan and the woman knew they were being taped. This means that not only is it possible that they lied on the stand, but with the huge amount required to appeal ($50 million), it's possible that they may get away with perjury.

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

#305

Post by paganel » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

olliej wrote: post #147

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…

And engadget and kotaku and most of the other tech related websites you probably read. Also its a good lesson to other sites to police content to ensure no one says anything bad about billionaires. Thank god for thiel protecting us from horrible things like censorship!

> Also its a good lesson to other sites to police content to ensure no one says anything bad about billionaires.

There's a brave new world of pro-billionaires media awaiting us. Just compare this lavish Vanity Fair piece (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/photos-sean-parker-we...) on Sean Parker's wedding to the ugly reality behind it all, as published by Gawker: http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-full-damage-of-facebook-bill...

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

#306

Post by bdcravens » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

olliej wrote: post #122

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…

It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people). So... Reporting on that seems like actual information that should be public? Compare to the pamela anderson tape, which was with her husband, was literally /stolen from their home/, and was sold for profit. Judge ruled that…

"hogan is a very public figure"

So it's OK as long as they cross the "very" threshhold?

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

#307

Post by will_brown » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #153

will_brown wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. There is a difference between protecting a group from being silenced by the Government and holding a private company liable when they release a sex tape under the pretense of freedom of speech/freedom of the press. >I believe this will have a chilling effect on the media in the US. As well it should...its not exactly a slippery slope: sex t…

> sex tapes don't become newsworthy just because the subject is a celebrity What if the sex might have been non-consensual (see: Dominique Strauss-Kahn)? What if the sex is between a public official and his employee (see: Bill Clinton)? What if the sex is illegal (see: Eliot Spitzer)? The fact is that sex can be of interest to the public, which means video of that sex can also be of interest to the public.

>What if the sex is illegal (see: Eliot Spitzer)?

There is another type of illegal sex, the kind involving minors. And I don't care how news worthy anyone would deem it to be, even the most hardcore Free Speech absolutist usually goes quite confronted with that conundrum. The public's interest doesn't create protected speech.

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

#308

Post by x1798DE » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

bionsuba wrote: post #239

keepper wrote: post #74

A racist billionaire[1], funding another racist millionaire[2], supporting another racist billionaire[3] But everyone seems to be ok with this, because of pseudo libertarianism? Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny." Oh man... what is going on!?! [1] https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/…

"A racist billionaire[1]" Penn Jillette has a great saying on this (paraphrasing): "Unless the person has explicitly said they're racist, claiming someone is racist requires the power to look into someone's heart, which no one has. The KKK and stormfront are very open that they are racists, and you can call those people racist because they say they are. You cannot make these sorts of claims without putting words into…

FYI, I accidentally downvoted this. Sorry.

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

#309

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #207

[deleted] wrote: post #69

[deleted]

Thiel was already out of the closet: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker-... I also think that outing a wealthy, powerful man like Thiel is beneficial to society. It hopefully increases acceptance of homosexuality. Of all people who are hurt by being outed in a major publication, Thiel is probably near the end of the list, since he was already out among his associates and extremely wealthy.

[deleted]

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

#310

Post by untog » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:58 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #260

smt88 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This wasn't some brave investigative journalist exposing corruption, this was a hack posting the sex tape of a celebrity. I agree, but the reason Gawker lost is important. It was because they violated someone's privacy. I strongly support violating the privacy of powerful, public figures in the future if it serves public interest. I agree that Gawker was stupid, greedy, and overreaching here, but I still worry that…

> but I still worry that next time... People are acting like their is no thought put into these type of court cases. This isn't a universal precedent that applies to every situation. It doesn't prevent any journalist from pursuing legitimate news stories and invading privacy along the way. It only prevents journalist from invading someone's privacy where the only story is the invasion itself.

Huh? That's not true at all.

A billionaire could fund cases against a media company entirely irrespective of the merit of those cases - the media company would still be forced to pay the legal fees associated with defending themselves, even if it's as simple as just getting it thrown out of court. Do it enough times and you've bankrupted the company.

For an example, Mother Jones was brought to the brink of bankruptcy for reporting an entirely true and legitimate story:

http://m.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersl...