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

371–380 of 566 posts

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

#371

Post by zeveb »

cookiecaper wrote: post #226
qq66 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One possible solution is the constitutional right to an attorney in civil cases as well as in criminal, but I don't know how you'd protect that against abuse.

Yes, I believe our system should be amended to ensure that roughly equal resources are available to both parties. The court should require an accounting of all legal fees to be filed. In certain cases, the wealthier party to the litigation should be obliged to pay an amount of money equal to their own expenditures on legal fees into a trust run by the court, which would ensure the less-wealthy party gets equally-soli…

> In certain cases, the wealthier party to the litigation should be obliged to pay an amount of money equal to their own expenditures on legal fees into a trust run by the court, which would ensure the less-wealthy party gets equally-solid representation and would prevent a lot of the bullying-by-lawsuit that goes on.

Sounds like that could be gamed by lawyers to turn into a full-employment-for-lawyers act.

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

#372

Post by Kalium »

wrsh07 wrote: post #318
karmacondon wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel was well within his legal rights. "Both sides are wrong" is a common cop out. False equivalency isn't helping

I wouldn't say they're equivalent. I find a private, rich entity shutting down a media company much scarier than a media company publishing facts.

How about a wealthy media company acting in a way that exposes them to liability, relying the inability of those they have victimized to seek redress?

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

#373

Post by loteck »

karmacondon wrote: post #293
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…

You're the expert, but I don't see the harm of "maintenance". If Boella was wronged legally, he should be made whole. Whether he uses his own money to make his case doesn't change the correctness of the ruling. People use the courts to get payback all the time, in a variety of ways. It's not about what's right, its about what's allowed. People with a lot of money have a big advantage in that regard. If we try to chan…

The key rule that Gawker broke here was "Don't make powerful enemies"

Gawker's reputation and missteps aside, this is not a rule any respectable journalism organization would agree with.

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

#374

Post by simonswords82 »

__jal wrote: post #339
karmacondon wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the expert, but I don't see the harm of "maintenance". If Boella was wronged legally, he should be made whole. Whether he uses his own money to make his case doesn't change the correctness of the ruling. People use the courts to get payback all the time, in a variety of ways. It's not about what's right, its about what's allowed. People with a lot of money have a big advantage in that regard. If we try to chan…

> but I don't see the harm of "maintenance" It is right in front of your nose. Whatever your views of Gawker, Thiel destroyed a news company out of spite. That seems like maybe a little bit of a problem. > It's not about what's right, its about what's allowed. People with a lot of money have a big advantage in that regard. If we try to change that, we'll have to redo a lot of the legal system. Or, you know, revert to…

I'm not saying that this type of vengeance and cash driven attack on media outlets is a good thing but...

I've seen news companies destroy hundreds of people and companies to gain readership and/or for other more political motives. Seems fair that they should have the table turned on them from time to time no?

Perhaps the remaining media companies will now be more diligent about who and what they report on.

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

#375

Post by lordnacho »

spott wrote: post #333
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As to point 3, your question is still too narrow. We should ask if even self funding of legal matters should be allowed. Even if we say this case should have happened because of funding, we are left with two major issues. First, we are left saying that this outcome would have been fine if Hulk had the money to do scorched earth. Second, we directly admit that the outcome of this case is the result of the money spent.…

If a case depends on the quality of the legal council, rather than the facts of the case, haven't we already lost? We live in a market based economy, and better lawyers get more money, so this is the same problem. I'm not sure how to fix this though. Any ideas? It is made all the harder by the "American Association for Justice"[0], a lobbying group made up of trial lawyers. They really don't want any sort of tort ref…

That's exactly right, we have already lost.

Can you imagine the outcry if we had a system where lawyers were randomly assigned to cases, and paid according to some fixed schedule (eg seniority)?

Yet wouldn't you want a world like that? Where whenever some matter arose, it wouldn't matter whether you were rich or poor, you would get some random lawyer, as would your opponent?

As to whether better lawyers get paid more, I need evidence to believe that. I'm no expert, but it seems to me the quality of legal work has a lot to do with how much time is available to do it, which pretty much depends on budget.

Whenever I've dealt with a certain class of (suited) professional, I've never gotten the sense that one guy would come up with something that another guy wouldn't, given the time. If there was doubt on an issue (typically tax related) both accountants would say so, and suggest spending time on research. If there was something aggressive (again tax deals) evert accountant seemed to think so. Same with lawyers, I've never come across some line of reasoning that seemed like it wouldn't have been uncovered by every lawyer, given enough time. And also they tend to defer to specialty experts whenever they are at the end of their knowledge, so it all feels pretty standard.

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

#376

Post by smt88 »

spriggan3 wrote: post #352
smt88 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"Whataboutism" is the bedrock of a legal system like ours. It's how you consider the consequences of a law in different edge cases that aren't as clear-cut as the current case.

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

#377

Post by api »

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-…

Neither are particularly helpful. It's all just noise.

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

#378

Post by webXL »

tomp wrote: post #360
untog wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or just implement Loser Pays.

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

#379

Post by karmacondon »

__jal wrote: post #339
karmacondon wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the expert, but I don't see the harm of "maintenance". If Boella was wronged legally, he should be made whole. Whether he uses his own money to make his case doesn't change the correctness of the ruling. People use the courts to get payback all the time, in a variety of ways. It's not about what's right, its about what's allowed. People with a lot of money have a big advantage in that regard. If we try to chan…

> but I don't see the harm of "maintenance" It is right in front of your nose. Whatever your views of Gawker, Thiel destroyed a news company out of spite. That seems like maybe a little bit of a problem. > It's not about what's right, its about what's allowed. People with a lot of money have a big advantage in that regard. If we try to change that, we'll have to redo a lot of the legal system. Or, you know, revert to…

Thiel is a billionaire, he could destroy many companies out of pure spite. If a startup founder looks at him wrong he could throw millions of dollars at one of their competitors, or pay someone to start a competitor purely for vengence. This may be petty, but it's entirely legal.

It seems like you're discussing a situation other than this case, but I can't figure out what it is. The court ruled that Gawker unlawfully invaded someone's privacy. They are clearly in the wrong no matter how you look at it. This isn't a case of rich people abusing the court system or using money to gain an unfair advantage. This is justice being done in the service of revenge, which is the usual way in which justice gets done.

I'm going to stick by the idea that people can use their money however they want within the boundaries of the law. The idea of not making powerful enemies is sound because there are countless ways that someone can use resources to make life difficult for someone else. It would be impossible to outlaw all of them, and you wouldn't want that even if it could be done.

I'd still love to hear how Thiel using his money to bring about a just outcome does harm to the integrity of the legal system.

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

#380

Post by mikeyouse »

dingo_bat wrote: post #313
troisx wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Actually the judge wouldn't let Gawker present evidence from the FBI that both Hogan and the woman knew they were being taped. Why? That seems like an important piece of evidence.

Cynically, because it was a small-town judge from Hogan's home town who resented NYC-based Gawker. This Politico article spells much of it out:

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk...

Post reply on HN