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

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

#381

Post by zeveb » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:45 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #84

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…

> Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video. What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? That was a private video, probably made illegally. Journalism is about making private things public when it suits the public. An individual (who is directly impacted by the revelations)…

> What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people?

For the record, he didn't say anything horrible about poor people. What he said was:

> There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. … My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.

He simply stated the facts: there's nothing he can do to win over a certain fraction of the electorate without compromising his principles; thus there's no point focusing on it; thus he needs to spend his time as a candidate focusing on those who he can win over without compromising his principles.

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

#382

Post by dfraser992 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #84

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…

> Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video. What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? That was a private video, probably made illegally. Journalism is about making private things public when it suits the public. An individual (who is directly impacted by the revelations)…

15 years ago, I met a videographer who told me a story about a job he was involved in in filming some internal meeting of the Libertarian Party in America. I realize it's hearsay, and I have no way to verify my statement, but I also have no reason to disbelieve him, given what I know of of human nature and his character in general (as much as I knew him).

Basically, his story was the upper leadership were caught on tape making comments about how the rank and file of Libertarians were essentially manipulated fools to prevent them from disrupting the power of the Republican Party. That is the gist of his story, as best I can remember. I have some sympathy for libertarian principles, and conservative ones, and liberal ones, so I am not an ideologue. This incident is entirely possible, given what I understand of human nature and how society/politics actually operates.

I agree with Gawker being repugnant etc; the story seems essentially salacious and its fundamental purpose was to drive website traffic. Are sex scandals that important, in the big picture? Only when they involve national security or other such public interest issues - e.g. General David Petraeus and his carelessness. Where is the line where exposing hypocrisy is in the public interest versus the essential rights of a person?

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

#383

Post by huac » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:48 PM UTC

RickHull wrote: post #350

hinkley wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say the same thing, but I think this is the key phrase: | litigation where the funder has otherwise has no connection with the merits of the dispute. I think those organizations and other social policy groups can demonstrate that they have a vested interest in the merits of the dispute. In fact that litmus test may be overbroad, allowing any corporation for whom the case is useful to their business str…

Except Thiel arguably has "connection with the merits of the dispute". He feels that Gawker violated his privacy as well as Hogan's, and he wants Gawker to be punished and/or discouraged from further similar behavior. Just like the EFF or ACLU.

then he should file his own lawsuit. he has no standing to sue over the hogan case

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

#384

Post by vkou » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:48 PM UTC

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…

All adversarial cases heavily depend on the quality of legal council. Law is not some deterministic mechanism where you insert the facts in one end, pull a lever, and it spits out a judgement in the other.

If you'd like an alternative, you could consider inquisitorial law - but barring a revolution, that will be a pipe dream.

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

#385

Post by mikeyouse » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:48 PM UTC

scruple wrote: post #230

baldfat wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they weren't the only ones and I don't think they were even the first ones to do so. (At work no way I am researching if I am right) I HATE GAWKER but it does seem strange that no one else was sued for this.

They defied a court order to remove the tape.

The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court stayed the order:

Gawker appealed the injunction, and Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued an immediate stay, which prevented the injunction from going into effect. Eight months later, the appeals court issued a scathing opinion that overturned Campbell’s order on the grounds that the video was newsworthy and Gawker's publication of it was protected by the First Amendment.

Armed with the appeals court decision, Gawker went back to Campbell and asked her to dismiss the case, since the appeals court had just ruled that publishing the video was protected by the First Amendment. Campbell refused.

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

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

#386

Post by matt-attack » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:49 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #319

slg wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't talk about issue 3 without mentioning things like the EFF, ACLU, NAACP, or any number of legitimate third parties that have made it part of their mission to support cases they think are important. How do you deal with those separately or how would you prevent Thiel from simply creating a similar organization and using it for his own personal agenda?

Most of the cases ACLU is involved in are against the government, not private entities.

Not sure how that's relevant for this discussion.

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

#387

Post by matt-attack » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

methehack wrote: post #355

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.

Excellent point.

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

#388

Post by karmacondon » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

loteck wrote: post #373

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…

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.

That was inartfully worded. Respectable journalism organizations don't invade people's privacy in a way that would lose a lawsuit. Woodward and Bernstein were on Nixon's enemies list, but they weren't convicted of a crime or found liable for damages in any court.

If you're going to cross that line, you'd better do so carefully. At the very least don't antagonize someone who can rightfully sue you into oblivion.

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

#389

Post by partiallypro » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #108

partiallypro wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta. Regardless of the outcome, many of us are dismayed that Thiel was able to weaponize the justice system using huge amounts of money. > why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? The tape of Hogan had racist comm…

> The tape of Hogan had racist comments on it, which are arguably in the public interest

Absolute nonsense. So if, let's say, Jennifer Lawrence had a tattoo on her butt that said something derogatory, suddenly leaking her nude photos is ok? I mean, she is a public figure and kids look up to her! What she does in the privacy of her home is absolutely public information, because of this. If they -really- only were doing it for the public's benefit they would have just had that snippet, with the audio; but they didn't, they published the full tape.

> That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta.

Do you think Hogan suing or anyone else suing for this type of thing is -not- a vendetta? Hogan was already wealthy, he didn't need Gawker's cash. He did it to take them down. Are we to not allow him to sue because that's technically a "vendetta?"

I mean, Gawker did a similar thing to Thiel by outing him to the public. That case would never hold up; so instead of going down that path he waited in the wings; I don't see how this is different than something like a class action where outside money is funding a suit.

People need to get the idea out of their head that "outside money" is inherently bad. The ACLU, FIRE, and tons of civil liberty organizations are "outside money." Be careful what you wish for.

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

#390

Post by untog » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #342

untog wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well run media companies have insurance for this type of thing. When Mother Jones lists the cost of that lawsuit, they combined both the costs they paid with the costs the insurance company paid for a total of $2.5 million. You need to separate those two costs out if you want to prove the Mother Jones was legitimately on the brink of bankruptcy due to the lawsuit. Otherwise it just appears to be an insurance company…

Even still, it's $650k out of Mother Jones's pocket. Unless you're Buzzfeed or a TV network, that's more than any media organisation can easily swallow.

Plus Gawker's case was specifically structured to avoid an insurance payout. A blueprint for others in the future.