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

351–360 of 566 posts

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

#351

Post by makomk »

cjahsh wrote: post #237
olliej wrote: post #169

Its amazing how many people are coming to claim this is "100% awesome", but in another thread will say that reddit closing threads that share stolen nudes or preteen porn is censorship that should be illegal and is demonstrating the power of SJWs.

There's not a lot of evidence that these are the same people. You know not everyone on the internet is the same??

On the other hand, I seem to recall there being no shortage of people who attacked Reddit over people posting revenge porn but sided with Gawker on this. Especially in the media. (Not just talking Gawker employees either, though there were plenty of those from all it's sub-publications.)

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

#352

Post by spriggan3 »

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 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)?

Whataboutism. Hogan had the right to sue, he won, end of story. This isn't the government and a prosecution silencing Gawker, this is an individual against a corporation and he won.period.

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

#353

Post by dfraser992 »

paganel wrote: post #305
olliej wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

I vaguely remember (please, someone, correct me if I am wrong) an article by Parker explaining the whole affair - my impression was the truth(tm) was someone in the middle. Or it was just very good damage control by Parker...

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

#354

Post by ryanlol »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #344
ryanlol wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But where does the ethical issue arise?

If you have the power to corrupt the justice system or even tip the balance - just because of the money you have - would you? There's your ethics problem.

Did Thiel corrupt the justice system? Did he tip the balance the wrong way? Would it have been "right" for Hulk Hogan to have to take on the significantly more wealthy Gawker all by himself?

In the end though, I feel that this really has very little to do with the justice system. It was only a vehicle Thiel used, he didn't need the justice system to ruin Gawker.

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

#355

Post by methehack »

grellas wrote: post #278

A few thoughts: 1. The pressure point here was a court ruling declining to stay enforcement of the $140M judgment pending appeal. This left Gawker having to post a $50M bond in order to avoid enforcement proceedings by which its assets could have been seized and its business literally dismantled. Gawker may or may not ultimately prove to have a successful basis upon which to get this judgment reversed but, without a…

If justice is blind, why should funding matter? In other words, to limit the means of funding would be to admit that your bank balance affects the outcome when the whole point of the judicial system is to achieve fairness.

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

#356

Post by igorgue »

smt88 wrote: post #189
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.

CLEARLY PETER THIEL LIFE WAS RUINED...

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

#357

Post by igorgue »

nailer wrote: post #41
igorgue wrote: post #30

Thin skinned billionaires...

You wouldn't say that if some private aspect of your own life was revealed to the public without your consent.

You are the kind of person who likes the first amendment only for compliments, it supposed to be for these kind of stuff, the ugly shit.

Again, he's a public figure.

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

#358

Post by omonra »

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #216
taejo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm American and I've only heard a muckraker described as number 2.

It was part of the American History 11th grade course I took in HS in the early 90s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker

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

#359

Post by ChuckMcM »

grellas wrote: post #278

A few thoughts: 1. The pressure point here was a court ruling declining to stay enforcement of the $140M judgment pending appeal. This left Gawker having to post a $50M bond in order to avoid enforcement proceedings by which its assets could have been seized and its business literally dismantled. Gawker may or may not ultimately prove to have a successful basis upon which to get this judgment reversed but, without a…

If we took a wider interpretation of maintenance as a crime would it imply that we should forbid lawyers from taking on cases on a contingency basis? Or does the representation automatically factor in there interest in the merits? (they certainly care, they don't get paid if they fail).

And Thiel certainly has an issue with Gawker, having been victimized in exactly the same way (revealing of otherwise personal information unrelated to the nature of their business or other public persona), so can he show connection with the merits as another victim?

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

#360

Post by tomp »

untog wrote: post #327
fullshark wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the hope is that the courts wouldn't rule against an actual journalist for doing his/her job in a lawsuit. I get the "slippery slope" argument but posting a video of Hulk Hogan having sex (taken and posted without his consent) doesn't really qualify as journalism in any way and they really deserved to lose.

The court doesn't even have to rule against the journalist for the legal costs to destroy a media organisation. By example, this exact thing happened to Mother Jones: http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-sued...

That's fucked up. But it's the same problem everywhere in the US - not just media. Looks like the whole system need an overhaul.
Post reply on HN