Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

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.

Yep and as a result a potential playbook for how to take on media companies has been published.


It's a fascinating case.

 

[faceless007]

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.

I don't really want to wade into this any deeper and I want to stress this is not in any way a defense of Gawker, but yes they are, and I don't know why anyone would think otherwise, nor why you think it supports your argument. The jury finding certainly isn't dependent on them being a media organization; only on them, as you note, having broken the law. But breaking the law doesn't make a media company not a media company.

 

[BronsonLee]

Yep and as a result a potential playbook for how to take on media companies has been published.


It's a fascinating case.

Ehhh. A whole lot of things had to fall in place for this to happen. For example, the judge on this case totally fucking hates Gawker

 

[excelsiorlef]

From the Forbes Article posted last page

Regardless, Denton needs help. While Gawker has since been able to secure funding from Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg’s Columbus Nova Technology Partners, the company remains under attack. The $140 million verdict, while widely expected to be reduced or eliminated on appeal, hangs over Gawker’s head like a guillotine, and numerous legal expenses are draining its resources.

This is why I say, that this is fucked up. The reality is the verdict is likely to be overturned on some level if not completely.


It shouldn't be possible for an initial ruling, that is likely not correct, to stand just because it's so big the company can't afford to pay it.

This isn't the little guy winning, this is a big guy taking down a media company for revenge.

This is a scary thing, forget that it's Gawker for a second.

 

[Brakke]

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.

I'm a little confused on the pronouns here but you've left out something. Not taking down the article was risky, sure, and in violation of the judge's order. However, it isn't "murky" any more. Gawker appealed *and won* against the specific order to take down the article. The appeals court reversed the order to take it down. You note that Gawker probably wins this case (or gets the ridiculous judgement reduced) on appeal, and this episode speaks to that likelihood.

In fact, the article about the sex tape is still up now.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

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.

From the Forbes Article posted last page




This is why I say, that this is fucked up. The reality is the verdict is likely to be overturned on some level if not completely.


It shouldn't be possible for an initial ruling, that is likely not correct, to stand just because it's so big the company can't afford to pay it.

This isn't the little guy winning, this is a big guy taking down a media company for revenge.

This is a scary thing, forget that it's Gawker for a second.

Again, this is all just the standard causes of "Fight for anti-SLAPP legislation" and "do something about all civil suits having massive payouts." Nothing about this is some attack on a free press or anything of the sort. In fact, Gawker being a media organization is irrelevant. If I'd done what they did on a personal blog, and gotten called on it, I'd be paying the exact same judgement.

I get arguing for both of those causes, since I do as well, but a lot of people are treating this case like Gawker should get off scot-free for breaking the law. I assure you, Denton isn't the little guy in this story. There isn't one. And even if there was one, the easiest answer is don't break the law. I don't know why punishing such illegal behavior is problematic.

In fact, I'd find the opposite ruling to be far scarier. Denton can invade anyone's privacy that he wants as long as he calls it journalism? That's an actual dystopia.

 

[Peter Ian Staker]

I hope Jalopnik survives this.
The rest can burn for all i care.
They got played and got themselves into a fight they shouldn't be fighting. A C-grade celebrity's sex tape is not worth all this trouble.

 

[twinturbo2]

Upholding privacy rights is scary precedence?

What?

Let me point out that Hulk Hogan talked about his sex life to Howard Stern. This included the sex tape.

Let me also point out that Theil's sexuality was an open secret in Silicon Valley. He hosted invite-only, men's-only parties where anything probably happened. And this was an open secret in Silicon Valley.

Gawker points this out and Peter Thiel calls them worse than Al Queida and funds lawsuits to drive them out of business.

But Gawker had it coming.

¯_(&#12484_/¯

 

[TheYanger]

Let me point out that Hulk Hogan talked about his sex life to Howard Stern. This included the sex tape.

Let me also point out that Theil's sexuality was an open secret in Silicon Valley. He hosted invite-only, men's-only parties where anything probably happened. And this was an open secret in Silicon Valley.

Gawker points this out and Peter Thiel calls them worse than Al Queida and funds lawsuits to drive them out of business.

But Gawker had it coming.

¯_(&#12484_/¯

Hogan can choose to say whatever he wants on Howard Stern, that doesn't suddenly give you the right to publish a sex tape to the world and ignore a court order to remove it. What exactly doesn't make sense here? Your goofy little shrug face doesn't change anything.

I can post on this forum what kind of porn I like in a thread, it doesn't suddenly absolve you when you secretly film me through my window masturbating watching it and then post it online.

 

[Garuroh]

Let me point out that Hulk Hogan talked about his sex life to Howard Stern. This included the sex tape.

Let me also point out that Theil's sexuality was an open secret in Silicon Valley. He hosted invite-only, men's-only parties where anything probably happened. And this was an open secret in Silicon Valley.

Gawker points this out and Peter Thiel calls them worse than Al Queida and funds lawsuits to drive them out of business.

But Gawker had it coming.

¯_(&#12484_/¯

Stupid gay people doing gay things! He had it coming!

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Let me point out that Hulk Hogan talked about his sex life to Howard Stern. This included the sex tape.

Let me also point out that Theil's sexuality was an open secret in Silicon Valley. He hosted invite-only, men's-only parties where anything probably happened. And this was an open secret in Silicon Valley.

Gawker points this out and Peter Thiel calls them worse than Al Queida and funds lawsuits to drive them out of business.

But Gawker had it coming.

¯_(&#12484_/¯

somehow you've managed to slut shame Hulk Hogan. Congratulations.

 

[Ecotic]

I'm still geeking out about Thiel's decade long quest for revenge. Remarkable determination and genius-level plot.

 

[Opto]

I can not like what gawker did and still think the lawsuit was less motivated by justice and more by vendetta. And I can feel bad for those under the gawker umbrella whose content I enjoy.

 

[Aselith]

somehow you've managed to slut shame Hulk Hogan. Congratulations.

lmao

 

[MisterFalcon]

I still remember the dark days before 2003 when Gawker was founded and free press was just a dream.

 

[TheYanger]

I can not like what gawker did and still think the lawsuit was less motivated by justice and more by vendetta. And I can feel bad for those under the gawker umbrella whose content I enjoy.

Literally does not matter what motivated Hulk to go after them though.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Honestly believe if it were Jennifer Lawrence instead of Hulk Hogan, even with support for a financier, people would welcome the decision.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

Honestly believe if it were Jennifer Lawrence instead of Hulk Hogan, even with support for a financier, people would welcome the decision.

Probably, well unless she also had audio leak like Hogan did.

 

[numble]

Not in chapter 11

Yes, debts are still discharged, that's the point. Normally debtors will get a lower return, have their debt cancelled or trade their debt for shares in the reorganized company.

 

[Mental Atrophy]

It seems excessive, but escalating punishment is needed when you don't comply. Gawker had opportunities to avoid this and instead chose the hard road. If they are dissolved, hopefully their employees promptly find work, but ideally nowhere near journalism.

 

[BronsonLee]

I have no idea how this made the New York Post, but the walking conservative tornado that is Michelle Malkin has some thoughts on the situation

 

[Nephtis]

I have no idea how this made the New York Post, but the walking conservative tornado that is Michelle Malkin has some thoughts on the situation

Hot damn, I would've never thought that piece would get past the editors.

 

[Dennis]

I have no idea how this made the New York Post, but the walking conservative tornado that is Michelle Malkin has some thoughts on the situation

In my case, 10 years ago in 2006, Gawker and its sister publication Wonkette knowingly published a fake photo of me purporting to show me partying it up in a bikini during a college spring break under the headlines “Michelle Malkin gone wild” and “Michelle Malkin, you ignorant slut.”
As with O’Donnell and Palin, it was an attempt to humiliate, degrade and punish me because of my gender and political ideology.

The image was a ridiculous Photoshop of a picture filched by an anonymous creep who stole it from the Flickr site of then-Ohio University student Ashley Herzog.

Both Ashley and I wrote the Wonkette and Gawker editors informing them of how her photos had been manipulated and requesting that they tell their readers what actually happened. Denton’s editors mocked us and then fecklessly claimed it was a joke all along.

This is Gawker for you.

 

[entremet]

Gawker is so bad that we have posters here on the side of a racist Hogan, a libertarian Billionaire, and Michelle Malkin.

Sometimes you just suck that bad.

 

[freenudemacusers]

pretty hilarious to watch posters suffer a short-circuit over what is a blatant abuse of media power, one of many over the years, because the people doing the chopping are assholes.

 

[tearsofash]

Getting ads for bankruptcy lawyers now lol

 

[entremet]

pretty hilarious to watch posters suffer a short-circuit over what is a blatant abuse of media power, one of many over the years, because the people doing the chopping are assholes.

I think Gawker deserved it.

I don't care that Thiel is a libertarian or billionaire.

I'm just illustrating how bad Gawker is that I have no problem siding with Hogan/Thiel.

These this strange undercurrent of late that if you're unsavory or an asshole that you don't deserve legal recourse. It's fucking madness! That's not how society should work.

 

[Dennis]

Getting ads for bankruptcy lawyers now lol

Could you forward them to Nick Denton pls?

He has an urgent need.

 

[Garuroh]

Gawker is so bad that we have posters here on the side of a racist Hogan, a libertarian Billionaire, and Michelle Malkin.

Sometimes you just suck that bad.

Gawker is racist,homophobic and sexist so....

 

[LewieP]

Were someone to acquire Gawker, and then they were taken to court over some of their other articles in the past, would the new owners be liable? Would it depend on the terms of sale?

I am fairly sure that there are other individuals who would have a case against them (especially if Thiel is willing to fund), and I imagine the potential for further law suits would turn off prospective buyers.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I don't really want to wade into this any deeper and I want to stress this is not in any way a defense of Gawker, but yes they are, and I don't know why anyone would think otherwise, nor why you think it supports your argument. The jury finding certainly isn't dependent on them being a media organization; only on them, as you note, having broken the law. But breaking the law doesn't make a media company not a media company.

Okay we will go with Gawker being a media organization. No other media company no matter how bad or hack they are have ignored court orders. The situation and verdict is crazy I won't argue that but did they break the law? Yes. Why the defense force for that?


Edit: I am wrong saying they are not a media company. I get flustered that people would think Gawker is in the same caliber of other papers and magazines. Other papers/organizations editorial staffs would not ever play or be as dirty Gawker is. I am sorry that I came out as a brat about them being a media company.

I am not happy with how things fell into place. But people rallying behind Gawker as a bastion of free speech against the billionaire tyrants is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Vermillion]

This is a scary thing, forget that it's Gawker for a second.

But if you forget it's Gawker, you start falsely equating it to real media companies. Or legitimate journalism.

 

[Kinyou]

Let me point out that Hulk Hogan talked about his sex life to Howard Stern. This included the sex tape.

That's a terrible defense.

I am fairly sure that there are other individuals who would have a case against them (especially if Thiel is willing to fund), and I imagine the potential for further law suits would turn off prospective buyers.

There are definitely more potential lawsuits.
I'd say James Franco would have a good case if he chose to pursue it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/james-franco-gawker_b_7816032.html

 

[geomon]

That's a terrible defense.

There are definitely more potential lawsuits.
I'd say James Franco would have a good case if he chose to pursue it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/james-franco-gawker_b_7816032.html

That is disgusting beyond belief.

 

[RockTurtle]

That's a terrible defense.

There are definitely more potential lawsuits.
I'd say James Franco would have a good case if he chose to pursue it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/james-franco-gawker_b_7816032.html

man that's just sad.

 

[BatDan]

I'm pretty sure it's hazardous to your health to be this salty

I love how he gives up trying to give names to a lot of these people and just goes "this fucking guy" and "this turd"
Goes after Notch, Jesse Cox and Takahata101. Probably spent more time looking for tweets than actually writing.

Professional journalism everyone! This is what Gawker wanted to keep around.

 

[etrain911]

Gawker not only outed Thiel but an executive at Conde Naste too. They get zero sympathy from me. When you use your outlet to sling mud and snark at everything within reach, you should not be surprised when it comes back to you.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I'm pretty sure it's hazardous to your health to be this salty

I love how he gives up trying to give names to a lot of these people and just goes "this fucking guy" and "this turd"
Goes after Notch, Jesse Cox and Takahata101. Probably spent more time looking for tweets than actually writing.

Professional journalism everyone! This is what Gawker wanted to keep around.

I wonder how long it would take Gawker to realize that they, in fact, are the assholes, not everyone else.

 

[JP_]

Surprising number of people that think it's ok for a billionaire to abuse the law to take down personal enemies. Don't see anybody talking about the fact that they dropped charges that gawker's insurance would have covered + the fact that Thiel spent millions paying people to dig up potential lawsuits to attack gawker with and repeatedly appealed cases they lost until they found a judge that would sympathize with them. This wasn't about hulk's sex tape, this wasn't a media company that simply got punished for breaking the law, this was a billionaire's personal vendetta. Yes, that's a scary precedent. Next time it might not happen to a media company you happen to hate.

edit: also, yet again we have a situation where people try to turn things into a good vs evil with no nuance. To be clear, disagreeing with the way the lawsuit played out doesn't mean I'm defending Gawker's actions or anything the CEO has said.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Hogan can choose to say whatever he wants on Howard Stern, that doesn't suddenly give you the right to publish a sex tape to the world and ignore a court order to remove it. What exactly doesn't make sense here? Your goofy little shrug face doesn't change anything.

I can post on this forum what kind of porn I like in a thread, it doesn't suddenly absolve you when you secretly film me through my window masturbating watching it and then post it online.

They didn't ignore a court order, they took down the tape. They just left up the article, which btw as mentioned above it turn out they had the legal right to.

It is very likely that an appeals court would have sided with Gawker, that's why this case and the way it's been handled is scary, Gawker is very likely to win some sort of, if not a total reprieve in appeals, but the money awarded to Hogan and the requirement for Gawker to put a large amount upfront prior to appealing is so big that it bankrupts them before they even have a chance to appeal.

Surprising number of people that think it's ok for a billionaire to abuse the law to take down personal enemies. Don't see anybody talking about the fact that they dropped charges that gawker's insurance would have covered + the fact that he spent millions paying people to dig up potential lawsuits to attack gawker with and repeatedly appealed cases they lost until they found a judge that would sympathize with them. This wasn't about hulk's sex tape, this wasn't a media company that simply got punished for breaking the law, this was a billionaire's personal vendetta. Yes, that's a scary precedent. Next time it might not happen to a media company you happen to hate.

Agreed

 

[Kinyou]

I'm pretty sure it's hazardous to your health to be this salty

I love how he gives up trying to give names to a lot of these people and just goes "this fucking guy" and "this turd"
Goes after Notch, Jesse Cox and Takahata101. Probably spent more time looking for tweets than actually writing.

Professional journalism everyone! This is what Gawker wanted to keep around.

If you’re happy about Gawker going under, this is the company you keep.

So basically no one is allowed to think that Gawker is disgusting or else you're guilty by association. Nice logic.

 

[Tom_Cody]

I am more worried that a 'media organization' like Gawker can fuck up individual lives like they did with that Conde Nast executive and they tried with Hulk Hogan.

Imagine being one person up a against an evil institution like Gawker.

This is where I stand.

 

[RockTurtle]

I'm pretty sure it's hazardous to your health to be this salty

I love how he gives up trying to give names to a lot of these people and just goes "this fucking guy" and "this turd"
Goes after Notch, Jesse Cox and Takahata101. Probably spent more time looking for tweets than actually writing.

Professional journalism everyone! This is what Gawker wanted to keep around.

it sucks that people aren't moustache twirling caricatures that only have objectionably consistent bad ideas and beliefs and can easily be clumped up.

i might share an opinion with someone that i don't usually agree with? man ....

 

[twinturbo2]

I have no idea how this made the New York Post, but the walking conservative tornado that is Michelle Malkin has some thoughts on the situation

She stalked the family of a 12-year old because the kid's parents took a liberal stance on health care. She was an actual cheerleader for the war in Iraq. She's an Asian American who wrote a book defending Japanese American internment in World War II.

She doesn't get the high ground on anything.

somehow you've managed to slut shame Hulk Hogan. Congratulations.

He refused to take responsibility for his own actions. Don't know what else to say.

Stupid gay people doing gay things! He had it coming!

It was an open secret in Silicon Valley.

 

[Dead Man]

It was an open secret in Silicon Valley.

Well shit, if he told some people, we must be ethically right to tell everyone! Fuck off with this forced outing shite.

 

[20cent]

Let's make fun of a company, where people work, being destroyed by a billionnaire idiotic fake sport cocaine-addict has-been athlete who is angry that someone published the video where you see this guy who everyone forgot about having sex with a random woman.

 

[TheCochese]

Let's make fun of a company, where people work, being destroyed by a billionnaire idiotic fake sport cocaine-addict has-been athlete who is angry that someone published the video where you see this guy who everyone forgot about having sex with a random woman.

Let's also ignore that they wouldn't be in this position if they only listened to a judge's order. Or didn't out publicly someone who they had a political beef with. Lots of opportunities to keep peddling their brand of crass.

 

[RockTurtle]

Let's make fun of a company, where people work, being destroyed by a billionnaire idiotic fake sport cocaine-addict has-been athlete who is angry that someone published the video where you see this guy who everyone forgot about having sex with a random woman.

let's also handwave a multimillion dollar company violating a lot of people who i don't like's civil rights for hits and personal vendettas while the hypocrisy flies over their heads for years and years.

 

[reptilescorpio]

Let's make fun of a company, where people work, being destroyed by a billionnaire idiotic fake sport cocaine-addict has-been athlete who is angry that someone published the video where you see this guy who everyone forgot about having sex with a random woman.

LOL in what dimension is Hulk Hogan a billionaire?

 

[King Tubby]

As long as Deadspin comes out alright, let Gawker burn. Gawker.com is the bottom of the barrel. Actually, it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as barrels.