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

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

#331

Post by chx » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #244

slg wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that really change the underlying belief? Whether what Gawker did was libel, an invasion of privacy, or any other crime it boils down to Gawker violating the rights of other individuals and building a business model around that practice. This wasn't some brave investigative journalist exposing corruption, this was a hack posting the sex tape of a celebrity. They aren't even in the same ballpark.

> 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…

There is no problem with the next thing. You can report about the sex tape, what is happening (because what was happening is also reprehensible) without releasing the tape itself. You know, they reported on Snowden's leaks and Panama Papers without releasing them. It's not impossible by any means.

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

#332

Post by pbreit » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:10 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…

Curious if you have an opinion on Gawker's chances on appeal. Is it true that the appellate court has already ruled that the video was newsworthy and so Gawker's chances are quite strong? Would the bankruptcy go on long enough to provide Gawker time to prevail as an independent entity?

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

#333

Post by spott » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:13 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #291

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…

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 reform, which might be able to fix this problem.

[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065

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

#334

Post by todipa » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:13 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…

a) An attorney working on contingency and your description of maintenance are not very far apart. b) In this country, justice is correlated with wealth. That was clearly shown in the Stanford rape case. Having wealthy people or non-profit organizations fund lawsuits against corporations should be allowed.

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

#335

Post by spriggan3 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:14 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.

> Thiel was already out of the closet

Tim Geithner's brother wasn't. Gawker is going down and that's a good thing. What people do in private is not Gawker's business.

> major publication

A bunch of scums and dishonest people who call themselves journalists. If I was a journalist, I would hate being put in the same bag as Gawker's employees.

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

#336

Post by curiousgal » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

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…

They're not bankrupt due to libel and slander. They're bankrupt for sharing stories that many people believe should be better left in private. The specific stories that got them here, regarding Hulk Hogan and before that Peter Thiel, are not libel or slander, as they both involve true information. The issue is whether publishing these things is an invasion of privacy that damages the individuals involved.

Much as you might hate Gawker, and I definitely think their practices of outing people for no reason and publishing sex tapes are morally and ethically shitty, what this really shows is that if you piss a billionaire off, they can and likely will silence you. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

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

#337

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:15 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…

> The broader question is whether the law should permit any third-party funding of litigation where the funder has otherwise has no connection with the merits of the dispute

The real question that I guess escapes most Americans (yet more Europeans notice it) is whether money should be able to influence the judgement at all.

Wealthy people shouldn't be privileged in court.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make this happen.

Edit: seems like Lawtonfogle and spott mentioned the same thing before me.

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

#338

Post by bruceb » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

spriggan3 wrote: post #311

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…

> and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed. Gawker ruined the livelihoods of its employees, not Hulk Hogan, not Thiel, with its scummy behavior.Hogan is the victim here, as much as Gawker's employees, they are victim of Gawker's policy which is profit at all cost. Well now Gawker is paying that cost.

If you are a journalist you know what Gawker is like, it obviously isn't a secret. They are not victims.

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

#339

Post by __jal » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

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…

> 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 making maintenance/champerty illegal, which appeared to work for the intended purpose[1] for rather longer than the US has existed.

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

In a thread discussing what can be done about the rich hijacking the justice system to destroy a news company out of spite, you (apparently normatively) (1) don't see the harm and then (2) essentially declare "Don't talk back to your betters". Please correctly where I'm wrong, but it sounds like you don't see any problem at all with the rich buying vengeance through the courts.

[1] Yes, money will always have an advantage. That doesn't mean throw your hands in the air and walk away.

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

#340

Post by hinkley » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #289

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 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?

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 strategy to claim they have a vested interest in the case...