Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#91

Post by maverick_iceman »

joering2 wrote: post #39
redthrowaway wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing to see how the left latched onto this as a "billionaire buys lawsuit" narrative, as opposed to the much more accurate "shitty darling of the left that habitually engaged in abuse got its comeuppance" narrative. Gawker repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, broke the law. They repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, tried to ruin innocent people's lives. They absolutely deserve everything that happened to them a…

> They repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, tried to ruin innocent people's lives. Can you actually prove that anyone's life was ruined? They mostly "reported" on sex tapes and other weird stuff, like the origins of Trump's hair. And my opinion, as I can imagine 99,9% of others, about Hogan's wrestling persona or skills has nothing to do with his out of wedlock shenanigans. And if you see a 140MM win from a lawsuit fo…

Justine Sacco, Greg Gopman

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#92

Post by FireBeyond »

pervycreeper wrote: post #74
FireBeyond wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea how $55M in economic harm was reached either. Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $25M, and is now estimated at $8M - though most of that has been stripped by divorce, before any of this happened. I am not sure how someone whose likely career income didn't reach $50M can now, in retirement, state that he suffered $50M in purely economic damages from this (remember, the emotional damage is separate, a…

>I have no idea how $55M in economic harm was reached either. >Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $25M It would include potential losses as well. His net worth is irrelevant.

Right, again - his career income likely never hit $55M. Even at the peak of his career it would only have been in the So in retirement, no longer a public figure, aged 62, I have no idea how he can credibly argue he potentially lost $55M in income because of this. That he somehow "potentially" had $4M a year until his death (based on median age of death) of endorsements go up in smoke strains credibility. That seems to me to be some definite creative accounting that might be appealed.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#93

Post by FireBeyond »

maratd wrote: post #89
dopamean wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "actually" as if you're trying to correct me in some way...

Were you talking about Thiel or Denton? It seems like you were talking about Thiel, so yes, I was correcting you.

That's rather presumptuous of you. Denton being an asshole in no way precludes Thiel from being an asshole.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#94

Post by FireBeyond »

danieltillett wrote: post #73
slowernet wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court case has not concluded. A gay, foreign media magnate known for publishing lurid expose (in addition to a lot of excellent and funny reporting [1]) was never likely to receive sympathetic treatment from a jury of people from Hulk Hogan's hometown. Let's see how things go on appeal. [1] http://gawker.com/heres-what-gawker-media-does-1779858799

Is anyone in a position to appeal? I was under the impression that Gawker had to cough up a huge amount of cash to be able to appeal.

They were trying to seek some money to cover the $50M in collateral that would be required for appeal (to be held in trust).

Even at this stage, Gawker/Denton offered Bollea shares in Gawker from their expected sale, _and_ Bollea _accepted_.

And then withdrew. I can't help but suspect if it was because Thiel's lawyers advised him not to, the same way they dropped the tort that was covered by Gawker's insurance.

I find this interesting too - it was one thing when it was just that insurance claim. Then Hogan is willing to accept collateral from Gawker's prospective sale (indicating it's not him that's looking for Gawker's abject destruction), but lawyers, funded by Thiel, have him drop this, too.

I think one of the fundamental tenets of justice (and to be quite clear, I feel Denton and Gawker both deserve to be reamed - for varying severities of the word - for their actions in this case) is the right to face your "accuser"/opponent. Not what looks more and more to me like their puppet.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#95

Post by basch »

jbooth wrote: post #88
redthrowaway wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and engaging in stuff like this? Only the left has a problem with his support of Hogan, because it was an attack on your tribe. Stop assuming the rest of us share your outrage. We don't. Thiel essentially insured Hogan's lawsuit, so that Hogan could proceed without fear of losing millions in legal costs. That's it. Billionaire swoops in and enables aggrieved party to sue evil corporation for abominable behaviour. I…

Buddy. Give the 'the left' stuff a rest. We're talking about a libertarian going way out of his way to attack a (horrible, tabloid) press organization here. Same guy bankrolled/backed one of the biggest private enablers of security state overreach in the country. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. Also, as far as you deciding what 'the left' thinks and then feeling superior to them for it.. I mean, whatever floats…

whoa, lets not equate spying on people to release their secrets publicly for ad revenue with secretly spying on people to maintain a status quo of peace. without defending the security industrial complex, we can pretty much all agree that unconsentualy publishing private sex tapes for money is a different type of moral turpitude than big brother.

i dont think hypocrisy is the right word

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#96

Post by _v7gu »

joering2 wrote: post #39
redthrowaway wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing to see how the left latched onto this as a "billionaire buys lawsuit" narrative, as opposed to the much more accurate "shitty darling of the left that habitually engaged in abuse got its comeuppance" narrative. Gawker repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, broke the law. They repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, tried to ruin innocent people's lives. They absolutely deserve everything that happened to them a…

> They repeatedly, knowingly, unabashedly, tried to ruin innocent people's lives. Can you actually prove that anyone's life was ruined? They mostly "reported" on sex tapes and other weird stuff, like the origins of Trump's hair. And my opinion, as I can imagine 99,9% of others, about Hogan's wrestling persona or skills has nothing to do with his out of wedlock shenanigans. And if you see a 140MM win from a lawsuit fo…

They released the list of all NY gun owners, complete with their addresses. Some people had gotten their guns as a measure against their stalkers, which now had their legal addresses. This also increased the risk of the relevant houses being hit by thieves, who could then use their new illegal guns for crime purposes.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#97

Post by basch »

jshevek wrote: post #83
nl wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone, left-or-right thinks of Denton as anything except a gossip peddler. It is hard to judge, but the divisions in this case don't appear to be right vs left. It seems to me it has more been aligned with people's views on a right to free speech vs a right to privacy. There seem to have been plenty on the right who think that the right to free speech should have trumped the right to privacy in this ca…

I would agree that left vs right isn't the best way to categorize the disagreements here, but I think its understandable that some people might think that 'the left' was championing Gawker. There were quite a few low brow leftist media outlets who jumped to Gawkers defense and tried to demonize Thiel.

>quite a few low brow leftist media outlets

maybe a better explanation is that "aggregators" republish whatever is outrageous and visible that day. the "news" is an echo chamber of people that spend their day surfing reddit and ending their contributions to the fourth estate with h/t

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#98

Post by maratd »

FireBeyond wrote: post #93
maratd wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you talking about Thiel or Denton? It seems like you were talking about Thiel, so yes, I was correcting you.

That's rather presumptuous of you. Denton being an asshole in no way precludes Thiel from being an asshole.

Isn't it equally presumptuous of you to assume that he is? Your only source of evidence is his financing of an aggressive lawsuit against a known asshole and his company.

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#99

Post by FireBeyond »

maratd wrote: post #98
FireBeyond wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's rather presumptuous of you. Denton being an asshole in no way precludes Thiel from being an asshole.

Isn't it equally presumptuous of you to assume that he is? Your only source of evidence is his financing of an aggressive lawsuit against a known asshole and his company.

Maybe I think Thiel is an asshole because of his funding of Palantir?

Re: Gawker Can’t Shield Founder from Hulk Hogan Sex-Tape Verdict

#100

Post by jdmichal »

bobwaycott wrote: post #85
jdmichal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What precedent, exactly? That doing illegal things is still illegal, even if you're a journalist? Or that you can get sued into oblivion, which could and did happen before this case?

I believe the precedent the GP was referring to, to which the parent was replying—and to whom I replied—is a billionaire using the legal system and a case to which he's not a party to seek revenge by bankrolling that case. I see no one disputing the legitimacy of suing Gawker or defending Gawker's disgusting and illegal behavior.

You realize that this is the same mechanism used by groups like the EFF, ACLU, and NAACP to bring cases? And what about a lawyer agreeing to take a case on contingency; isn't that technically the lawyer funding the case, and not the plaintiff?

Also, what is the alternative here? Sure, Hogan maybe has enough money that he could have funded the case. Could Joe Smith working his 9-to-5 have funded that case? If not, how is he supposed to get justice, if this exact situation happens to him? Money is already a problem in court, isn't restricting the funding sources of the common person therefore a negative outcome?

Finally, this was discussed the last time this case came up:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878742

Post reply on HN