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

521–530 of 566 posts

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

#521

Post by skwirl »

troisx wrote: post #304
k-mcgrady wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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" this theory doesn't make any sense once you consider the fact that the racist statements that ended his career were on this tape. He went through his long public career without making racist statements despite harboring racist beliefs, so he knew what impact such statements would have. If he had known he was being taped for publicity, it would have made no sense for him to make what he would know to be public racist statements.

The judge didn't allow the evidence be heard likely because there was no evidence (conjecture). It's the standard desperation you get from someone losing a case or appealing a loss.

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

#522

Post by slavik81 »

jkern wrote: post #297
univalent wrote: post #165

The size of the award is insane. Wrongful death suits are awarded far lower amounts.

Honestly that's the part of this story that stands out to me. Clearly Gawker was in the wrong for posting the sex tape, but the size of the punishment seems massively disproportionate.

It seems fairly common for judges to end up having to reduce the amount that juries award. If you look at responses to news articles about fines against companies, many people immediately compare them against the company's revenues or net worth as a measure of how fair the amounts were. I presume that's how juries see these things as well.

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

#523

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

bionsuba wrote: post #239
keepper wrote: post #74

A racist billionaire[1], funding another racist millionaire[2], supporting another racist billionaire[3] But everyone seems to be ok with this, because of pseudo libertarianism? Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny." Oh man... what is going on!?! [1] https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/…

"A racist billionaire[1]" Penn Jillette has a great saying on this (paraphrasing): "Unless the person has explicitly said they're racist, claiming someone is racist requires the power to look into someone's heart, which no one has. The KKK and stormfront are very open that they are racists, and you can call those people racist because they say they are. You cannot make these sorts of claims without putting words into…

Yes but: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/09/paypal-co-fou...

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

#524

Post by selimthegrim »

acdha wrote: post #497
argonaut wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than just relying on what you think, you would need to propose a legal framework that can actually be enforced, for distinguishing between the two. Because it is legally ambiguous. Because if your framework becomes "non-profit that publicly reports spending is okay," what's to stop a billionaire from donating millions to their own non-profit, governed by a bunch of their "elected" friends (membership fee = $1M…

I keep coming back to a very simple policy: disclosure. When the ACLU pays for lawyers, it's not a secret and e.g. a judge, government official, etc. making decisions about the case does so with full knowledge of who's backing it. As with campaign finance, this has two benefits: it avoids trying to enumerate all of the ways someone might try to game the system and it addresses free speech concerns by simply requiring…

Oh really, so then you'd be OK with throwing out the case law for cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Button and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Alabama?

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

#525

Post by pmarreck »

FilterSweep wrote: post #330
pmarreck wrote: post #80

I'm torn between everyone having their privacy and ripping the band-aid off by exposing everyone's private life at once so we see how things really are instead of how we think them to be For instance, I'd bet that many marriages are largely keeping up appearances while hiding some big secrets which would put the whole concept of "Western marriage" at risk (perhaps justifiably)

Hmmm.... Do you need to see how everyone's private life is, or is this just curiosity? Sure, if you can live with the unnecessary consequences of how some people might react when their private lives are exposed - Ashley Madison Hack[0] provides a salient recent example [1]. Furthermore, it is obvious to many that some marriages are all for appearances. But they are also for children. They're also to appease nuclear a…

Regarding the links... Perhaps, if those intolerant countries realized the TOTAL truth, they might accept it and move on instead of killing people? (note that American intolerance for infidelity is the same as Saudi Arabia and faaaar lower than France.)

There are of course things I freely elect to not know. Simple example, the sexual details of all the exes of my current girlfriend. I could ask her and she'd tell me, but I won't. Call it insecurity...

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

#526

Post by oldmanjay »

jacquesm wrote: post #486
pron wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The linked case is about a celebrity worth quite a bit of money and still it wasn't enough to get the case decided in his favor, it needed yet another - bigger - millionaire / billionaire to step in to sway the case. But that's not what happened. The case was "decided in his favor" a long time ago when Gawker offered to settle for a sum of money that would far exceed anything he could have expected in his wildest d…

That's wrong on quite a few levels, thank you for that insight, I did not fully appreciate the details. As much as I dislike Gawker that's a personal vendetta fought through the justice system and a third-party's lawsuit on top of that.

Is it wrong because so few people have the resources to fund vendetta suits?

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

#527

Post by cookiecaper »

CM30 wrote: post #314
cookiecaper wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How about a differet system? Both parties pay into a pot based on how much money they have. Then the only legal advice can they take is set by random rather than by anyone's choice, out of roughly equal quality legal teams paid for by the money from the pot? Just make it so money cannot buy better lawyers or legal advice, and the court system would be made far fairer to everyone.

The problem is that specific issues need specific expertise. The client should have the right to pick his/her attorney if he has the resources. This keeps attorneys interested in keeping a competitive skillset and a good track record. It's too important to leave to chance. You really need an attorney who understands the subject matter if you want a good outcome. We just need to equalize the buying power so that one side is not deprived of the ability to obtain equal representation.

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

#528

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

j2kun wrote: post #454
RickHull wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just curious: aside from historical precedent, what objective "connection with the merits of the dispute" makes the ACLU more appropriate than Thiel to fund a privacy suit? Is it just that the ACLU has trained lawyers who can weigh in on the law? Would the attitude toward Thiel change if Thiel happened to have a law degree? Would it change for the ACLU if they were purely funding it and not actually providing lawyers…

The ACLU tries to promote civil liberties in general.

One of those liberties is the right to a free press - "free" specifically meaning "has the right to annoy rich and powerful people."

Thiel promotes Thiel.

It's a clear difference in scope.

IMO a culture that can't tolerate having a court jester like Gawker on the premises isn't a healthy one.

Sometimes a jester can go too far, and a kick in the ass is deserved.

But trying to nuke the jester from orbit is an act more common in totalitarian regimes than in those that value personal freedoms.

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

#529

Post by dredmorbius »

notcotsotrot wrote: post #243
viggity wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they didn't say anything bad about Thiel, the reason he went after them is because they outted him as gay.

Incorrect, that's his sub-excuse. The actual reason is because of Valleywag reporting on e.g. his embarrassing failure of a hedge fund.

Source?

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

#530

Post by dredmorbius »

bionsuba wrote: post #239
keepper wrote: post #74

A racist billionaire[1], funding another racist millionaire[2], supporting another racist billionaire[3] But everyone seems to be ok with this, because of pseudo libertarianism? Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny." Oh man... what is going on!?! [1] https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/…

"A racist billionaire[1]" Penn Jillette has a great saying on this (paraphrasing): "Unless the person has explicitly said they're racist, claiming someone is racist requires the power to look into someone's heart, which no one has. The KKK and stormfront are very open that they are racists, and you can call those people racist because they say they are. You cannot make these sorts of claims without putting words into…

I've argued both sides of this. I don't believe in the absolutist case in either direction.

If someone's making a plausible and reasonably consistent, and especially not self-serving case that they hold, or don't hold, some belief, I'll generally allow them to own it. I'll especially allow them to own it in preference to another party with a specific, partisan, self-serving, and most especially, non-credible axe to grind in denying that self-labeling.

That said, if the self-claim is grossly inconsistent, self-serving, and implausible, I'll deny it.

I'm not judging the current case either way. I'm not a fan of Gawkers, but am also hugely concerned with the precedent Thiel's made here.

Post reply on HN