They don't as such. Someone bought the name shortly before acquiring IGN.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gawker Media files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection
- Thread starter LiK
- Start date
- Status
They don't as such. Someone bought the name shortly before acquiring IGN.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Hulk Hogan is a celebrity. Celebrity sex tapes and leaks are released all the time. Why is the issue Gawker? They're not the first media outlet to release some celebrity expose', hence the disconnect.
MisterHero
Super Member
Regarding "Freedom of the Press"
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Go look up what Gawker did to the CFO of Conde Nast, and tell me that the site's conduct is acceptable.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
This. I don't want to live in an America where thin-skinned tech billionaires can put media companies out of business because they hurt their fee-fees. This is scary precedent if it holds.
Other celebrity sex tapes:
Not filmed without their knowledge with a reasonable expectation of Privacy. When Kim Kardashian is looking right at the camera, talking about filming it with Ray J, it's implicit that she knows she's being filmed.
Revenge porn laws would likely cover a great deal of those tapes now, were they to not have permission from the persons in the film (IE: were Kim K not actually involved and getting paid for her sex tape), but none of that would apply to this. You cannot just hide a camera in a dressing room and film someone getting undressed and release it to the public either.
What a shitty post, they're not being put out of business because 'he didn't like' what they posted, they're being put out of business because what they did was illegal and they literally IGNORED a court order to take the shit down.
"Scary precedent" to uphold the law. Crazy times.
Flying Toaster
Member
So then who is going to regurgitate NeoGAF and Reddit news as articles if Kotaku goes away?
/s
The situation sucks but I can not feel bad for Gawker. As to people saying this is the press being shutdown by money. That is a lame stretch to encourage that what Gawker media did was legitimate news and to date no other organization in media has directly ignored a court order.
/s
The situation sucks but I can not feel bad for Gawker. As to people saying this is the press being shutdown by money. That is a lame stretch to encourage that what Gawker media did was legitimate news and to date no other organization in media has directly ignored a court order.
Maybe if the media companies didn't break the law then this wouldn't have happened.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
You called that a shitty post merely because you disagreed with it?
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
People defending Gawker's integrity when the whole reason why they got into this mess was due to a severe lack of it, I can't even.
He called it a shitty post because what you said in the first sentence was false.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
If you read what his post, you'd know he wasn't even directing me.
You'd think Gawker financed and made the sex tape based on posts like this.
No, no you wouldn't. But nice dismissal. You'd think exactly what I wrote by reading my post, if you want to try and assign some other bullshit agenda, don't do it to something I wrote.
No, I called a post shitty for the reason I stated right after I called it shitty. Do I need to expand it out into a high school essay to make it obvious that one part is the thesis and the other immediately following part is the argument for why I stand by my thesis?
captainnapalm
Member
Isn't this more of a victory for the little guy, then an example of a rich guy abusing his power?
A predatory entity like Gawker is able to protect itself and violate people's rights and privacy because it can afford to fight massively expensive lawsuits. A guy like Hogan would normally be screwed if he wanted justice, but along comes Thiel like Bruce Wayne and allows him to fight the lawsuit and they win.
A predatory entity like Gawker is able to protect itself and violate people's rights and privacy because it can afford to fight massively expensive lawsuits. A guy like Hogan would normally be screwed if he wanted justice, but along comes Thiel like Bruce Wayne and allows him to fight the lawsuit and they win.
Well, they leaked it directly, I believe, not reported on it and they refused to cooperate on taking it down
Septimus Prime
Member
At the end of the day, the founders and executives will still be able to walk away with a huge payout if Gawker gets bought. So I guess they really can't lose.
I'm not so sure, I think it would depend on what the price is as I would imagine they have to settle up on the lawsuit first in that case
BronsonLee
Member
I'm not so sure about that in Denton's case.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
If Gawker wasn't doing anything wrong, they'd have won their case. They're a shitty, unethical company, and hopefully no one in a management position there can run away from the decisions they made there.
Best of luck to the staff writers though, but not to their terrible employer.
If Gawker had gotten ahold of your sex tape, or revealed your sexual orientation without your consent through a gross invasion of privacy, then I'd imagine you would change this line. It's incredibly prejudiced to call the outing of a gay man "hurting his fee-fees." You and I have privacy, and yes, that extends to the wealthy. Gawker violated their rights, and they don't deserve protection for that.
As an aside, I really don't like the language from a few other journalists about this case. Some of them are dangerously close to "the press is immune to the laws of the land" instead of "the press has free speech." The latter is correct, but the former represents a scary world to me. TMZ style ambushes and theft of your information, all by journalists looking for a good headline.
Hippo_PRIME
Member
It would be one thing had Gawker reported actual news that impacted the public in a meaningful way. Instead, they made an enemy of a rich businessman by publicly outing his sexuality, removing his privacy and agency on the matter.
I won't try to defend anyone's character in this. There's plenty of scummy behavior to go around. That said, the narrative forming of, "Rich asshole silences freedom of the press," seems to pardon Gawker's slimy "reporting" practices. Theil is no politician and his private life isn't really newsworthy.
People are excusing Gawker for journalistic reasons when Gawker had displayed no integrity deserving of it.
I won't try to defend anyone's character in this. There's plenty of scummy behavior to go around. That said, the narrative forming of, "Rich asshole silences freedom of the press," seems to pardon Gawker's slimy "reporting" practices. Theil is no politician and his private life isn't really newsworthy.
People are excusing Gawker for journalistic reasons when Gawker had displayed no integrity deserving of it.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
So you're okay with billionaires intimidating the press because of an unflattering news piece. Okay. 😕
It wasn't unflattering, it was illegal
BronsonLee
Member
Eehhhh, unflattering is not the word I'd use for the pieces that got them into trouble
That's a strange use of unflattering.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Winning your case is not always enough in these situations. If you read the Mother Jones story, they had to spend $2.5M fending off a similar lawsuit and weren't able to recover any of that money. A media company without a seven figure warchest is unable to defend themselves against this sort of behaviour, but that's okay as long as Gawker suffers.
What part of illegal and unethical do you not understand?
Hippo_PRIME
Member
Genuine question, would you be okay with a press organization printing the address of a private citizen? Or the school that person's children attend? I think the matter (particularly the core spat with Theil) deals more with where privacy and press freedom collide and what the threshold is for real news.
Flying Toaster
Member
I really like how the goalposts move. Breaking the law is okay it's journalism. Heck why didn't any other major media organization go with the Hulk story... They must not be legit.
But Gawker did have money to defend itself. They weren't crushed by legal fees. They were crushed by a judgment. Very different from something like a SLAPP lawsuit.
Roland_Gunner
Member
You can look at everything I've posted in this thread and the goalposts haven't moved one inch. If Gawker broke the law, there are legal remedies for punishing them and that's great. The problem is that Thiel used this a pretext to bankrupt a media company that he doesn't like. You like to believe that this can only happen to 'bad' organizations but another billionaire almost did the same thing to Mother Jones, even after they won the case. The Hogan sex tape is a complete side show. The ability of wealthy elites to silence the media is the story.
EDIT:
Only because Thiel's legal team structured the lawsuit in such a way as to prevent Gawker's insurance from kicking in. If this was actually about getting justice for Hogan that wouldn't have happened. Instead, its clearly about Thiel punishing an organization that angered him a decade ago.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Anti-SLAPP laws are the way to go for this, not defending illegal behavior, which seems to be what you're doing.
Again, fight for anti-SLAPP laws, which are shown to be positive. But this weird defense of illegal acts is strange and not helping your argument at all.
Let me ask you this: if Gawker had broken into your own and stolen sex tapes of you (where you say racist stuff to match this case), would you sue them? Or would you think about the consequences for them violating your rights, realize they might go under, and then drop the suit?
I don't think you'd drop the suit, nor should you.
Gawker's insurance company didn't honor the claim because they didn't feel that Gawker's actions were negligent.(which there was a separate lawsuit for)
I think you would have a hard arguing that it was negligence. Who knows what settlement Gawker reached with the company though.
Flying Toaster
Member
Do you have a degree in journalism? Ignore that. Have you worked for a journalist/media organization? I really doubt you have. Gawker is not a journalistic/media organization. They broke the law. I am sorry you cannot understand that or that you cannot understand how things work in media.
Roland_Gunner
Member
How exactly should I fight for anti-SLAPP laws? I already vote for progressive candidates and provide financial support when possible. Care to lend me $20 million or so for this worthy cause? For those of us without the ability to shape legislation, advocating in forums like this is about all you can do advance a cause. Someone concerned with the ability of the wealthy to abuse the judicial system is more likely to support an anti-SLAPP law than the average person.
Sure, in that scenario I would sue Gawker, get a huge settlement, and have more money that at any point in my life. I wouldn't intentionally weaken my case by dropping the claim of emotional distress so that the insurance policy wouldn't kick in. Which is exactly what Hogan did. If this was really about getting just compensation for the sex tape, why did Hogan weaken his own case?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac...er-thiel-plan-to-destroy-gawker/#46eacbd5848a
Roland_Gunner
Member
No, I don't work in the media but many reporters and journalists I respect are very alarmed by the Gawker case. Here are four examples of that from earlier in this thread:
Jamelle Bouie:
Gawker might be undeserving, but eventually the billionaires will come for "deserving" publications too.
Spencer Ackerman:
So many wealthy people must be looking at what Thiel did to Gawker & wondering how they can sue media companies they dislike into bankruptcy
Adam Serwer:
The potential chilling effect on speech from billionaires bankrupting news outlets they don't like is terrifying
Wesley Lowery:
[This is] A real threat to the free press
Can you please enlighten me about what these folks don't understand about how the media works?
entremet
Member
They don't understand how the law works, at the very least. You can post Obama being afraid of it and it doesn't mean anything - They broke the law and it directly harmed an individual's life. That individual sued them. Had they not broken the law, nothing would have come of it.
There are anti SLAPP groups that have successfully lobbied in getting legislation introduced in some states. If you actually care, you could probably Google some and donate.
As for the Forbes article. It doesn't mention when those charges were dropped (before or after the insurance lawsuit). It also doesn't bother asking any lawyer as to why one would drop that claim. What you claim could be factual, but you can't claim speculation as fact.
Flying Toaster
Member
Yep my response was going to be this. Those people quoted clearly do not understand how things work.
andythinkpad
Member
So I didn't know there were so many Gawker employees post in GAF until now.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Yes, you can vote and donate. Done. It's actually pretty in-offensive legislation, so write your representative (if your state doesn't already have these laws!), and ask them to consider it.
And to the latter part, I would. If I was wronged, I'd use every tool to fight back. The person fighting back here was wealthy (Hogan or Thiel), and they brought a legal suit against Gawker. Gawker broke the law. Done.
I'm super confused about what you think should have happened. Should Gawker be allowed to break the law without consequence? Or should the consequence be less than what the jury ruled? Because the former is blatantly ridiculous, and the latter just parrots the old "Civil suits pay too much!" argument. It's certainly not an injustice.
Yeah, Serwer and Lowery in particular really disgust me with the dog-whistles in their tweets. Like I mentioned further up, they're basically arguing that the press is immune from any legal consequence whatsoever. This is insane, and thankfully not the case.
It's a shame a corrupt law breaking organisation like Gawker can escape legal obligations for filing for Ch11. It doesn't matter whether Hogan is an upstanding individual or not. His rights were ignored and the law was broken by Gawker.
Sure, it sucks for their employees but working for an unethical, corrupt and law breaking enterprise comes with that risk. The fault isn't Hogn's. It is Gawker's for failing to comply with a legal request.
Sure, it sucks for their employees but working for an unethical, corrupt and law breaking enterprise comes with that risk. The fault isn't Hogn's. It is Gawker's for failing to comply with a legal request.
That could just have as easily been a lawyer's call to weaken Gawkers case. In answer to your question, he would do that so that they had less ability to defend themselves via getting money from insurance. I'd imagine someone did the calculations and decided that the amount that it would weaken Hogan's suit was less than what it would weaken Gawker's ability to put forth a defense.
BronsonLee
Member
I have to imagine that the employees of the company, like with any other company, have wildly varying opinions about the situation
I don't really think it weakened Hogan's case at all, but it definitely weakened Gawker's ability to A: settle and B: prevent getting dragged into court
It was a trap play. It removed their safety net.
excelsiorlef
Member
There's a solid chance that if they could have afforded the appeal that the settlement would have been at least likely greatly reduced.
Let's not forget that Hogan got to have the court proceedings payout basically in his backyard.
Look they did wrong, and Hogan should get money, the question is should it have been literally so much that the company goes under.
Also I think what's interesting is that it wasn't the sex tape that ruined Hogan it was the racism on it that leaked years later. Also interesting that the tape published had 9 seconds of sex. I'm not defending Gawker, it shouldn't have been published, but again an entire company is going under for this.
Also distorted in all this btw is the argument that after the court ordered them to take the video down that they didn't. They did, they took down the video (didn't want to but did). Where they ignored the court was not in not taking down the video but in not taking down the article that talked about the video.
That's completely different, that's arguably murkier waters in terms of 1rst amendment rights. So they did in fact take down the video but still talked about it and what they saw.
The truth is if they were in a situation to be able to actually appeal, they likely would win on some levels and see at least a reduction in the verdict, but they can't even appeal because the court settlement was so large, frankly that's chilling.
Interesting New York Article on it: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-stakes-in-hulk-hogans-gawker-lawsuit
This probably sounds like I think what Gawker did was cool, I don't , Gawker itself is crap, they just own a lot of subsidiaries that do a lot of good work, and even though Gawker is crap I'm unconvinced that Hogan getting enough to bankrupt them was a fair verdict.
BronsonLee
Member
To truncate what happened, Gawker basically got played. They've dealt with lawsuits before, but they fucked up here and got caught with their pants down by someone who's been preparing for this for a long time, and blindsided them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked