Support NeoGAF

[Brakke]

In a vote carried out on Friday night, Univision executives voted to remove six posts published by former Gawker Media properties that are involved in ongoing litigation. The vote took place just hours before the close of Univision’s purchase of Gawker Media’s assets

John Cook, the executive editor of Gawker Media, voted to preserve all six posts. As he explained in a memo to staff, however, the other two executives—Felipe Holguin and Jay Grant, both of Univision’s Fusion Media Group—still voted to remove the six posts over his strenuous objections.

1) The Inventor of Email Did Not Invent Email? (Gizmodo)

2) Corruption, Lies, and Death Threats: The Crazy Story of the Man Who Pretended To Invent Email (Gizmodo)

3) Acquitted Rapist Sues Blog For Calling Him Serial Rapist (Jezebel)

4) Wait, Did Clowntroll Blogger Chuck Johnson Shit On The Floor One Time? (Deadspin)

5) Mitch Williams Ejected from Child’s Baseball Game for Arguing, Cursing (Deadspin)

6) Witnesses: Mitch Williams Called Child ‘A Pussy,’ Ordered Beanball (Deadspin)

Felipe and Jay explained that they proposed deleting those seven posts because they are currently the subject of active litigation against Gawker Media, and that Unimoda had been authorized only to purchase the assets, and not the liabilities, of the company. Though the posts were published by Gawker Media, and therefore under the so-called “first publication rule” should only be the legal responsibility of the Gawker Media estate being left behind in the transaction, Unimoda’s legal analysis was that the continued publication of the posts under the new entitity would constitute the adoption of liability, and that Unimoda is therefore obligated to delete them. Felipe and Jay represented to me that their decision to propose deletion of the posts was purely a function of the terms of the transaction, and that Univision and Unimoda are committed to defending our journalism against any future legal threats or attacks.

http://gizmodo.com/univision-executives-vote-to-delete-six-gawker-media-po-1786466510

delete if old or if your corporate overlords want to

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Felipe and Jay explained that they proposed deleting those seven posts because they are currently the subject of active litigation against Gawker Media, and that Unimoda had been authorized only to purchase the assets, and not the liabilities, of the company

How are just those 6 posts liabilities? I'm probably missing something here.

 

[Exotoro]

what do they have against the guy who invented email

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

It's not surprising to me that there is litigation against them for calling a guy acquitted of rape a rapist when he had already taken legal action against another blog for doing the same.

 

[Krejlooc]

Those are some fucking trashy posts...

 

[vern]

How are just those 6 posts liabilities? I'm probably missing something here.

Did you miss "active litigation?"

 

[TheSeks]

"This story is no longer available as it is the subject of pending litigation against the prior owners of this site."

Now I really want to see that shitting on the floor story. Damn it, Univision.

 

[SuperBanana]

"This story is no longer available as it is the subject of pending litigation against the prior owners of this site."

Now I really want to see that shitting on the floor story. Damn it, Univision.

"6 stories you won't believe Gawker posted! SHOCKING!"

 

[FelixOrion]

"This story is no longer available as it is the subject of pending litigation against the prior owners of this site."

Now I really want to see that shitting on the floor story. Damn it, Univision.

Wayback Machine, baby.

 

[pigeon]

How are just those 6 posts liabilities? I'm probably missing something here.

Wait, it's in the OP!

Univision is afraid that if they keep those posts published then they can be legally construed as being Univision's posts and so Univision could then be made liable for their content, which is currently under suit.

That would constitute taking on a previous Gawker liability, and since Univision explicitly said they wouldn't do that, they don't want to do it here.

 

[B-Dubs]

Univision's cleaning house from the look of it. This was always going to happen after they bought Gawker, it would have happened no matter who picked them up. They bought Gawker, not Gawker's lawsuits.

 

[Eusis]

what do they have against the guy who invented email

That he didn't invent email.

Obviously.

 

[Delusibeta]

I would imagine the staff of the blogs in question are going to kick up a major fuss over this.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Chuck C Johnson did shit on the floor though

 

[CharminUltra]

Yup, those look like Gawker-quality posts.

 

[Krejlooc]

I would imagine the staff of the blogs in question are going to kick up a major fuss over this.

Then they'll be fired.

 

[entremet]

Yup, those look like Gawker-quality posts.

Yep.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

Heh, pretty sure some of these are being handled by the same guy Theil hired for Hogan

 

[Stinkles]

If you bought a house with six dead rats on the floor would you just decorate around them? The litigants already have the records. It's private property and not particularly in the public interest anyway.

 

[CertifiedFP]

Six less tabloid articles in the world.

 

[elrechazado]

Owner of journalism company exerts editorial control. Also, dog bites man.

 

[Mesousa]

Its hilarious that #1 is taken down due to this. From my understanding of it the Gawker article is 100% right about that guy.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

That Charles Johnson post was a national treasure.

Rip.

 

[CDX]

When Univision bought them, they didn't want the old lawsuits too.

Whether you feel those lawsuits are legitimate or not, IMO it's completely understandable why the new owners, Univision, wouldn't want to be involved with the old lawsuits.

 

[Fhtagn]

Six less tabloid articles in the world.

The email one isn't tabloid. There's a guy who keeps claiming he invented email 10 years after it had already been invented. He likes to sue if you point this out.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's not surprising to me that there is litigation against them for calling a guy acquitted of rape a rapist when he had already taken legal action against another blog for doing the same.

U.S. District Judge John Tharp Jr. upheld Huon's defamation claim against ATL Thursday, but dismissed all claims against Gawker.

.

 

[Brakke]

If you bought a house with six dead rats on the floor would you just decorate around them? The litigants already have the records. It's private property and not particularly in the public interest anyway.

This is a terrible analogy and you should feel bad for making it.

 

[TheSeks]

Wayback Machine, baby.

Well, that wasn't as amazing as I thought it'd be.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

When Univision bought them, they didn't want the old lawsuits too.

Whether you feel those lawsuits are legitimate or not, IMO it's completely understandable why the new owners, Univision, wouldn't want to be involved with the old lawsuits.

It shows that frivolous lawsuits (that gawker is winning) still allow rich people to shut up outlets that report bad things about them. That are factual.

Its hilarious that #1 is taken down due to this. From my understanding of it the Gawker article is 100% right about that guy.

It is but peter thiel is funding a lawsuit.

 

[jstripes]

Its hilarious that #1 is taken down due to this. From my understanding of it the Gawker article is 100% right about that guy.

Factual or not, it's in the middle of active litigation, so it's a liability to leave it up.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Factual or not, it's in the middle of active litigation, so it's a liability to leave it up.

So if I'm rich I can just try things up in litigation and have them taken down? Even if I will lose?

Thats pretty much prior restraint

 

[jstripes]

So if I'm rich I can just try things up in litigation and have them taken down? Even if I will lose?

Thats pretty much prior restraint

Not saying they're right to take it down. Just giving the reason.

All this billionaire money being funnelled into lawsuits like this is horrible.

 

[Stinkles]

This is a terrible analogy and you should feel bad for making it.

I don't feel bad for making it - any "public interest" was served at the time of publishing, and further, amplified by the lawsuits. Univision bought the audience and content, not the associated liabilities - not only is it theirs to do with what they wish, they expose themselves to legal jeopardy by continuing to "publish it."

And further, like the dead rats, these "objects" aren't useful to either the buyer (univision) or the public. And unlike disposing of the dead rats, the "objects" will continue to exist in perpetuity. In some ways it's less outrageous than disposing of the rats.

This is WHOLLY different than my opinion of Gawker itself being in this position. But Gawker is no longer extant.

 

[HarryDemeanor]

Two Mitch Williams articles? Is Mitch Williams covering baseball with Univision?

 

[Syder]

Acquitted Rapist

This is an oxymoron, no?

 

[213372bu]

Gawker was a bastion of ethical journalism.

These six articles highlight the lengths that no true journalistic outlet would go for.

To provide information in a field where many outlets are either hushed out or focus on "pop news."

They will be missed.

 

[LordOfLore]

This hasn't been posted?

 

[Timedog]

I wanna know if some guy shit on the floor one time. This is a dream come true for me and I'll be thinking about it for days. Wow.

 

[Jakoo]

This hasn't been posted?

I guess this is the statement you would expect them to make, but man, talk about biting the hand that is feeding you.

I'd expect Univision to own all litigation moving forward, but not necessarily have to pay for past "sins". This seems like a fair compromise for clearing the slate.