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

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

#391

Post by partiallypro » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

deong wrote: post #279

jshevek wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. After Thiel was revealed as the financier, some in the media saw an opportunity to re-caste the narrative in a way that they knew would appeal to our hatred of the rich and our fear for their abuse of power. The story became all about Thiel the alleged bully, the abuser of power, his petty grudge, etc etc. It was effective manipulation, just look at the comments here from those who think this 'sets a ba…

Firstly, the ACLU is open about it. There's no way to know, but my guess is that had Thiel stepped up in public a few years ago and said, "Gawker is a terrible gossip rag that needs to be taught a lesson -- contact me if they've wronged you too, and I'll help you mount a case", people would be less angry at him. People don't like the idea that a shadowy cabal can run things behind the scenes without any public scruti…

The ACLU is only public about it because part of their mission is to raise awareness. They have PR blitzes to publicize new cases they are taking on.

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

#392

Post by cloudjacker » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

Anybody want to set up a group buy for Jezebel? I want to shape what women think about to be more in line with my image of reality.

partially kidding

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

#393

Post by untog » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

webXL wrote: post #378

tomp wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still wouldn't work. The loser wouldn't pay until the case is closed, and the company could go bankrupt in the meantime. Case in point, Gawker is widely expected to have their damages reduced on appeal, but it's already too late.

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

#394

Post by rqebmm » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #315

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…

(3) is proof positive the absence or presence of funds has too much influence on the outcome of court cases. If all that stands between a judgment one way or the other is a pile of cash then effectively there is no such thing as justice and this means that more often than not the party with the smallest bank account will lose. I'm fine with the concept of 'maintenance' but at the same time I feel that there is such a…

I agree. It may be a necessary evil to counter the effect of money on litigation. As a result it should require transparency about who is funding the 'maintenance' in order to clarify any conflicts of interest.

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

#395

Post by xlm1717 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

kebolio wrote: post #229

>kotaku Hopefully Gawker's demise will wipe out Kotaku forever as well. Whatever your views on the GamerGate movement (I certainly don't like what it has turned into thanks to /pol/), the corruption and collusion of Kotaku "journalists" is disgusting and unacceptable.

The whole gawker media "empire" was despicable. This is reflected by the fact that so many were ambivalent or supportive of the lawsuit against gawker. Glad to have them gone.

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

#396

Post by SilasX » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #315

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…

(3) is proof positive the absence or presence of funds has too much influence on the outcome of court cases. If all that stands between a judgment one way or the other is a pile of cash then effectively there is no such thing as justice and this means that more often than not the party with the smallest bank account will lose. I'm fine with the concept of 'maintenance' but at the same time I feel that there is such a…

Exactly -- the problem is that our civil litigation's "truth-finding procedure" is so vulnerable to financial influence. Asking how to "keep people from spending money on lawyers" is the wrong approach; the system's process needs to be robust against such asymmetric investment. [1]

People forget that proper civil litigation is a public good (in the economic sense). Ensuring that (civil) wrongdoers pay for their actions benefits everyone by making it less likely they will be a victim of such acts, and more likely that transgressors will offer a quick settlement rather than using the courts in the first place.

[1] While it's impossible to truly shield off such influence, we can at least go for some standard like, "it should take an exponential investment to produce a linear impact on the award".

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

#397

Post by Clanan » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:54 PM UTC

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…

Like many things in politics and law, forming one's opinion must include considering a reverse situation - what if a wealthy individual funded the successful litigation of a "positive" entity? e.g. Bill Gates funding the destruction of the EFF (assuming someone had a case).

I was taught to do this in political classes (based on James Madison's discussion of factions), and it can have such a huge impact on motives and attitudes. For example, should government track all Muslims? What if in 10 years the government started tracking all Christians? Still think that tracking policy is a good idea??

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

#398

Post by scott_s » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:55 PM UTC

matt-attack wrote: post #386

tptacek wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not sure how that's relevant for this discussion.

Because most of the ACLU's activities do not fall under this discussion.

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

#399

Post by webXL » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:57 PM UTC

panglott wrote: post #370

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.…

Taking this question seriously, is there any legal system that has ever operated like that? What would it entail? A state monopoly on legal services where lawyers are assigned by lot? A system of "loser pays legal costs" where lawyers bid for likely wins/profitable cases?

I think "loser pays" is a pretty good equalizer. It actually would protect companies like Gawker from frivolous lawsuits, or merely just the threat of those lawsuits. The savings could be used for legit cases such as this, without having a settlement bankrupt the company. And attorney fees are high in the first place because of the the demand frivolous lawsuits put on the system, so there's an additional source of savings from Loser Pays.

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

#400

Post by slg » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:57 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.

Or if he doesn't do it personally, he can certainly create the Privacy Protection League in order to fight for privacy rights. And guess what the first case the new PPL might take on. I'm not sure how you distinguish that from a legitimate organization like the EFF or ACLU.