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

431–440 of 566 posts

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

#431

Post by drumdance »

olliej wrote: post #158
FireBeyond wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and Gawker had purchased insurance to deal with the ramifications of their actions. Bollea's lawyers, as funded by Thiel, then decided to specifically drop the claim that would allow the damages payout to have been made from insurance. That's fairly vindictive. Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtle…

They did have insurance, and when that became clear the claims were changed so that their insurancr wouldnt cover it. This is: you hit me with a car, i find out what your insurance covers, and then make sure that your insurance wont cover it.

I don't understand how this is even possible. It seems to me that the plaintiff should have no say in how you pay for damages save perhaps being able to ask for a public apology.

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

#432

Post by schoen »

rfrey wrote: post #348
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…

Thank you for the historical context of point (3), it gives a lot of colour to the situation. Other replies to your comment have pointed out that the actions of the EFF and so on are generally against the government rather than private parties. But I wonder how re-instating "maintenance" would affect issues like consortiums funding defences against patent trolls.

The question of whom EFF's legal work is against is a little bit complicated because EFF undertakes direct representation as well as writing amicus briefs (and also sometimes counsels people in situations that don't lead to a court case).

If we look at

https://www.eff.org/cases

there seem to be 296 matters mentioned (which isn't exactly all of EFF's casework for various reasons; for example, some cases may predate the existence of that page, some matters mentioned there may encompass multiple court cases, and some cases may be under seal).

It would take a while to classify all of them, and it's not a good idea to just take a sample of the first n cases in alphabetical order (for example, because criminal cases are captioned U.S. v. Somebody).

I did a random sort of the cases there and went through the first 50 of them, and I classified them as 18 government, 30 private, and 2 other (not clearly referring to an individual court case). It's also interesting to note that in two of the cases in my sample, EFF was defending (or not opposing) the government's position.

To summarize, I think EFF's legal work more often involves private parties than the government, at least by number of court cases (not necessarily by number of attorney hours or pages of briefing!). The same might not be true of ACLU's work.

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

#433

Post by PeterisP »

__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…

The courts have said that in this case the company's wrongdoing is literally larger than the value of their existence ($150mm vs $100mm IIRC?), so the company should justly be destroyed.

I see a problem with a potential result where justice would not have been served simply because one party run out of funds to pay the lawyers. That is a problem with a legal system.

The problem is that Thiel's intervention is just a one-off "workaround" that fixed one case but doesn't help other similar cases.

"people with a lot of money have a big advantage in that regard" and as far as I understand, it's the exact reason why Gawker had gotten away with similar offenses multiple times already. A solution that aims to improve justice needs to ensure that a low-funded claimant can reasonably win against a multi-million company like Gawker - forbidding maintenance isn't a fix for that; it still leaves open the much, much more popular scenario where injustice is served simply because you can't afford to someone who is rich enough on their own.

This is a case that had an even playing field - before that it was a case of the rich (namely, Gawker) buying immunity through the courts.

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

#434

Post by Tomte »

untog wrote: post #310
slg wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I still worry that next time... People are acting like their is no thought put into these type of court cases. This isn't a universal precedent that applies to every situation. It doesn't prevent any journalist from pursuing legitimate news stories and invading privacy along the way. It only prevents journalist from invading someone's privacy where the only story is the invasion itself.

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…

> the media company would still be forced to pay the legal fees associated with defending themselves

That's obviously a big problem. I have never understood why America insists on a dogmatic principle that inherently and unavoidably gives a vast advantage to well-off parties over poor parties. You can get away with a lot of vexatious litigation before the courts (a) notice it and (b) actually act upon it.

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

#435

Post by whyenot »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #236
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…

He was videotaped without his knowledge in a situation he had every reason to expect was private. If you then obtain that tape and publish it you're scum. The livelihoods of the employees were ruined by their idiot bosses who thought it would be a good idea to publish the video, not by the persons defending their privacy.

The fact that in private Hulk Hogan is a racist piece of garbage, as is VERY clear if you see a transcript of the tape, seems to me like something which is news, and something that should be reported. During his wrestling career he was marketed as the good guy, a hero, and true American. Publishing the sex tape was going too far, but publishing what was on the tape, that's legitimate journalism.

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

#436

Post by MichaelGG »

__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 destroyed a news company out of spite

... Did he? Cause it seems like the court did that. Everyone's talking as if judges are some passive entity that have no option but to allow money to dictate outcomes.

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

#437

Post by Kalium »

wrsh07 wrote: post #423
Kalium wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not saying Gawker is a martyr here. But if you haven't, you really ought to read Benedict Evans piece on this: > Again, though, Thiel has already won. He is fabulously wealthy and extremely influential, and say what you will about Gawker, the liberal democracy that made it possible for the companies Thiel has built and invested in to emerge depends on a free press; driving a publication to bankruptcy via lawyer f…

I see and understand where the author is coming from.

I just don't fully agree. I see a powerful person doing what nobody else was willing to do - hold a powerful and abusive media organization to account for their actions. It's far from ideal. However, no ideal answer was on offer. In an ideal world, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.

To me, it is a stepwise improvement over the previous state of affairs. This reminds powerful people and organizations of something important - they are not the only ones with power.

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

#439

Post by throwanem »

ryanlol wrote: post #419
__jal wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>It is right in front of your nose. Whatever your views of $x, Thiel destroyed a $y out of spite. That seems like maybe a little bit of a problem. What's wrong with Thiel destroying things out of spite? Should he not be allowed to retaliate if someone attacks him? Why? Should anyone be allowed to retaliate when attacked? Is the only problem here that Thiel used the courts to accomplish this, rather than other means?

"Cet animal est très méchant..."

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

#440

Post by ryanlol »

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.

How would you cap it? Could someone just spend ridiculous amounts of money to win a simple lawsuit and bankrupt the other party like that?
Post reply on HN