[Cap'n Tightpants]

https://gma.yahoo.com/gawker-media-f...lebrities.html

Holy sh*t, this makes me so happy. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company. RIP Nick Denton, you worthless parasite.

Shortly after Gawker Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy today, the media company announced that it had entered into an asset purchase agreement with Ziff Davis, a global digital media company that is a subsidiary of j2 Global, Inc.

During the sale process, Gawker Media's seven media brands will continue with their usual operations, according to a press release.

Other bidders can still offer a higher price for Gawker Media, which will be sold in a bankruptcy court supervised auction, the press release states.

[P]

Agree 100%. There has been a lot of handwringing online over this after it was revealed that Thiel was involved, but I don't see it. This wasn't a frivolous lawsuit - Gawker lost. If Thiel had funded a thousand lawsuits to wear Gawker down, that would have been one thing, but he funded one - and won.

Whether the size of that judgement was appropriate or not... well, maybe not, but you can't blame Hogan and Thiel for that.

[subego]

This made me sad in the sense Denton has weaseled out of the punishment he deserves.

I try not to hate people, but I haven't quite been able to manage it with Nick.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I don't know, Denton got what was coming to him and he won't see a dime of the money from the sale of Gawker, that will all go to the people who have sued his worthless ass and Gawker's lawyers. Also, I don't think he's personally out of the woods yet, either. There's a load of personal culpability here and he could see all of his personal assets drained too.

[subego]

Oh yeah, he's totally ****ed. I just wish he was more ****ed.

[turtle777]

Yep. Serves them right.

-t

[Mike Wuerthele]

Or, you know, our article about it.

Gawker files for bankruptcy protection following Hogan lawsuit loss | MacNN

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

If Thiel had funded a thousand lawsuits to wear Gawker down, that would have been one thing, but he funded one - and won.

That's not correct, Thiel had backed several “promising” lawsuits against Gawker in the past.

Originally Posted by The New York Times

But the revelation this week that Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others has raised a series of new questions about the First Amendment as well as about the role of big money in the court system — specifically the emerging field of litigation finance, in which third parties like hedge funds and investment firms pay for other people’s lawsuits.

Thiel and his law firm were also behind Hogan denying a settlement of reportedly $10 million and dropping a claim for “negligent infliction of emotional distress” because Gawker's insurance apparently would have been forced to pay for Gawker's defense and its payouts. It makes me wonder what Hogan got from Thiel other than free legal counsel: if the company you're suing goes bankrupt and can't pay for the $100+ million settlement, what's in it for Hogan?

Just to be clear, Thiel did nothing illegal (nor should what he did be illegal), but it was immoral and petty. And Gawker's behavior is also sleazy. But looking at it from a big picture perspective, what has happened here isn't right.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just to be clear, Thiel did nothing illegal (nor should what he did be illegal), but it was immoral and petty. And Gawker's behavior is also sleazy. But looking at it from a big picture perspective, what has happened here isn't right.

What "big picture" is that ?
Gawker's behavior over the years was 100 times worse than a "petty"
Justice against an out of control media corporation has been served. This is a rare thing, it should be celebrated.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What "big picture" is that ?
Gawker's behavior over the years was 100 times worse than a "petty"
Justice against an out of control media corporation has been served. This is a rare thing, it should be celebrated.

No, it wasn't justice, it was vengeance. Look, I don't care about Gawker, I haven't read them before, and I'm not reading that site now. From what I have heard, there are some assholes in charge there.

But the bigger picture is that a billionaire with an agenda was able to kill them off with the help of the legal system. Outing Thiel as a homosexual was not right, but it wasn't illegal. Other groups with money could use the same strategies to silence other publications. That doesn't sit right with me.

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's not correct, Thiel had backed several “promising” lawsuits against Gawker in the past.

That sounds like he picks them carefully. What I mean is that his goal is not to bankrupt them through legal fees, which would be sleazy, but through actually losing lawsuits, which I have zero problem with.

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, it wasn't justice, it was vengeance. Look, I don't care about Gawker, I haven't read them before, and I'm not reading that site now. From what I have heard, there are some assholes in charge there.

But the bigger picture is that a billionaire with an agenda was able to kill them off with the help of the legal system. Outing Thiel as a homosexual was not right, but it wasn't illegal. Other groups with money could use the same strategies to silence other publications. That doesn't sit right with me.

There is one more thing that Gawker could do: business as usual but stop doing illegal crap like the Hogan tape. Thief could rage all he wants then. Problem is, Gawker's business strategy is all about doing illegal stuff and even more borderline illegal stuff, so that would kill them.

Bottom line is that Denton refuses to be obey the law and finally got smacked down for it. No problem with that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

That sounds like he picks them carefully. What I mean is that his goal is not to bankrupt them through legal fees, which would be sleazy, but through actually losing lawsuits, which I have zero problem with.

Then how do you explain that Hogan's legal team dropped the claim that would have kept Gawker's insurance in play?

Originally Posted by Businessinsider

Denton told The Times he started suspecting something strange about the case after Hogan dropped a claim for "negligent infliction of emotional distress." That claim would apparently have required Gawker's insurance to pay for its defense and its potential payouts.

Dropping the claim meant Gawker would have to pay out of its own pocket, but it also would have potentially resulted in a lower payday for Hogan.

Neither from Hogan's nor from Gawker's perspective that'd make sense (because it'd ensure a payout to Hogan and keep Gawker from bankruptcy). That move was entirely to Hogan's detriment. No, I think Thiel wanted to bankrupt Gawker. There are no heroes in this story.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But the bigger picture is that a billionaire with an agenda was able to kill them off with the help of the legal system. Outing Thiel as a homosexual was not right, but it wasn't illegal. Other groups with money could use the same strategies to silence other publications. That doesn't sit right with me.

So, you mean other groups with money could kill business that do illegal stuff, and are run by assholes ?

Let's hope it does come to that.

The question remains: why does it take a big money to shut these fu$&ers down ?

-t

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Then how do you explain that Hogan's legal team dropped the claim that would have kept Gawker's insurance in play?

That just means that they're more interested in hurting Gawker - to make them stop what they're doing according to Thiel, or for vengeance if you don't believe him - than in making money.

In fact I think it strengthens Thiel's case that his motives are pure. If they had kept that claim and let the insurance pay out to settle, it would have been about making money or vengeance. Gawker's premiums would have gone up but they wouldn't have admitted to anything, making it an incentive to do even more illegal things in a hope to make more money. This way it is much more black and white - do this illegal thing and it costs you, stay on the right side of the law and we don't have a problem.

[Mike Wuerthele]

What Gawker did with Thiel and Bollea isn't illegal. It's shady, and unethical, and not journalism in any way. What public good did it serve to know that Thiel was gay, or that Bollea was having sex with a DJ's wife? Both stories were 100% about advertising traffic, and money-making at the expense of another human being.

What Thiel did with Bollea against Gawker isn't illegal. It's shady, possibly unethical -- and utterly unsurprising from celebrities and billionaires. Gawker can try to sue Thiel, but it'll end SO badly for them.

Thiel didn't buy a verdict. He bought a legal team. The jury decided what Bollea should be awarded. So, who are we supposed to feel sorry for, here? The poorly-run multimillion dollar company with the opulent headquarters in NYC, or the ex-wrestler, or the billionaire? Nobody smells good.

[P]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like either of them. Thiel had his fingers in Palantir, that is reason enough to be suspicious of that guy. But if a court finds that Gawker is liable, is it wrong to say that they did something illegal?

[Mike Wuerthele]

It's mostly a semantic argument, but the Bollea/Gawker thing was in civil court, not criminal. So, while Gawker is legally allowed to publish what they want in this regard, it doesn't mean that there aren't consequences...

[turtle777]

pff, that's semantics, too.

Gawker violated law. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have been convicted.

-t

[subego]

It's definitely illegal. IIUC, the main distinction arises from whether it can land you in the pokey.

[Mike Wuerthele]

So, then, somebody clarify for me what Gawker did that was illegal? I'm not seeing it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele 

So, then, somebody clarify for me what Gawker did that was illegal? I'm not seeing it.

Hogan owns the rights to the video. Gawker profited off it without his consent.

Edit: that's off the top of my head. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list.

Or, since this is the legal hour, I should say "including, but not limited to".

[starman]

Maybe what Gawker did wasn't illegal, but it was disgusting and immoral. Did they think themselves so powerful that they believed nobody could take them down? So...they keep doing more disgusting things. THAT is why I'm happy they're gone. They got cocky and felt untouchable. "Journalism" they would yell. It's not journalism when you out someone or call someone a liar for your own gain (read: clickbait).

Nobody should build up their own company based on unethical behavior.

It's like what people have said all along: you can say what you want, you have that right, but there can be consequences.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

That just means that they're more interested in hurting Gawker - to make them stop what they're doing according to Thiel, or for vengeance if you don't believe him - than in making money.

You're forgetting that the lawsuit is actually about Hogan and his video, not Thiel. The purpose of the lawsuit is not to put a business, well, out of business, but to compensate the victim for wrong doing. We don't know exactly why Hogan went along, perhaps he did want to see them out of business, and that was more important to him than a financial payout. But perhaps he was interested in a free top-notch legal team.

Originally Posted by P 

In fact I think it strengthens Thiel's case that his motives are pure.

They were pure in the sense they crystallized to a single thing: he wanted to bring Gawker down. I don't see anything altruistic here, he is doing that for himself, not for the benefit of others. Thiel called it “one of my greater philanthropic things that I’ve done.” (taken from this Vanity Fair piece).

Originally Posted by P 

If they had kept that claim and let the insurance pay out to settle, it would have been about making money or vengeance.

And forcing the company to close down is not about vengeance but a thing of nobility? That doesn't make any sense to me. Furthermore, it stands to reason that Denton will walk away with quite a lot of cash from the sale of Gawker.

Originally Posted by P 

This way it is much more black and white - do this illegal thing and it costs you, stay on the right side of the law and we don't have a problem.

The law was playing itself out correctly: Hogan was able to sue whereas it was clear that Thiel was not. Again, lawful does not necessarily mean morally right. In this particular situation, the intention of the law is not to shut companies down, but for them to pay restitution and damages. In my opinion, Thiel sets a dangerous precedent that could hit more reputable publications because of proper journalism.

[OreoCookie]

@Mike Wuerthele
Well put.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by starman 

Maybe what Gawker did wasn't illegal, but it was disgusting and immoral. Did they think themselves so powerful that they believed nobody could take them down? So...they keep doing more disgusting things. THAT is why I'm happy they're gone. They got cocky and felt untouchable. "Journalism" they would yell. It's not journalism when you out someone or call someone a liar for your own gain (read: clickbait).

Such “news” are a large share of what people read, reputed marriage troubles of Hollywood stars, shots of their children at the beach, etc. All of this tabloid-style journalism creates a lot of page views — because there is a voracious demand for it. While perhaps a photographer trying to take pictures of Kristen Bell's children is not as deep an intrusion into the private sphere as, say, publishing a sex tape, it's all in the same vein.

[turtle777]

So, Oreo, since you are defending Gawker:

In your opinion, what should have been the outcome of this lawsuit ?

-t

[starman]

Taking public pictures and posting private info is NOT the same thing.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So, Oreo, since you are defending Gawker:

I'm not defending Gawker, I'm criticizing Thiel's behavior — and that doesn't mean tacit approval of Gawker's practices. I think the Schadenfreude I'm reading here is misplaced, there are no heroes in this story.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

In your opinion, what should have been the outcome of this lawsuit ?

I've done that in my first post in this thread.

Originally Posted by starman 

Taking public pictures and posting private info is NOT the same thing.

Oh, but it is, it's just a different degree. Hogan's sex tape is not the first to leak out (e. g. Hilton's and Kardashian's sex videos come to mind). You're violating someone's privacy for the amusement of the public. Everyone is focussing on Gawker, I'm saying the people who should really be criticized are the ones reading Gawker (and similar publications).

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Since you can't charge everyone for reading the smut, you go after the people illegally acquiring it. You sound like the those who want to put drug users in prison and largely ignore the pushers.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Since you can't charge everyone for reading the smut, you go after the people illegally acquiring it. You sound like the those who want to put drug users in prison and largely ignore the pushers.

No, I'm saying we should tend to the addicts, and that this will drive down demand.

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You're forgetting that the lawsuit is actually about Hogan and his video, not Thiel. The purpose of the lawsuit is not to put a business, well, out of business, but to compensate the victim for wrong doing. We don't know exactly why Hogan went along, perhaps he did want to see them out of business, and that was more important to him than a financial payout. But perhaps he was interested in a free top-notch legal team.

The magic word here is "deterrent". Gawker has done as it pleased, laws be damned, for a long time. Denton has been very open about this, and how he feels that he should be permitted to publish anything with no consequences. Gawker acts like it does because justice is for-pay in the US, and they had more money. Thiel's entry into this meant that their old strategy didn't work anymore. If they start getting judgements like this against them, the rational action is to stop publishing things like the Hogan sex tape. That would be a win for us all.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

They were pure in the sense they crystallized to a single thing: he wanted to bring Gawker down.

Well, I think he wanted them to stop doing what they're doing. The exact method is less relevant.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't see anything altruistic here, he is doing that for himself, not for the benefit of others. Thiel called it “one of my greater philanthropic things that I’ve done.” (taken from this Vanity Fair piece).

He's hardly alone in being a megalomaniac. I would rank things like, say, curing cancer, above stopping Gawker, but I can agree that stopping them is a good thing.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

And forcing the company to close down is not about vengeance but a thing of nobility? That doesn't make any sense to me. Furthermore, it stands to reason that Denton will walk away with quite a lot of cash from the sale of Gawker.

My point is that this judgement isn't crippling on Gawker as a concern no matter what they do - it just cripples their illegal business model. I think that the $140 million will be reduced on appeal (because it always is), thereby making it even more so.

The original wrong here is that Gawker keeps publishing things that are illegal. They should stop doing that. By driving the lawsuit to its logical conclusion, that becomes more likely than if someone had settled. It is all cost vs. reward - and the cost of publishing something you know is illegal just went up.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The law was playing itself out correctly: Hogan was able to sue whereas it was clear that Thiel was not. Again, lawful does not necessarily mean morally right. In this particular situation, the intention of the law is not to shut companies down, but for them to pay restitution and damages. In my opinion, Thiel sets a dangerous precedent that could hit more reputable publications because of proper journalism.

Weelllll... Hogan was able to sue, but he would not have been able to win without Thiel's money. This is why Gawker is still alive - justice is too expensive.

And a good chunk of that money they won was punitive damages. Such is awarded specifically as a deterrent, not to compensate for the error.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

Well, I think he wanted them to stop doing what they're doing. The exact method is less relevant.

I don't believe in “the ends justify the means”-type of thinking.

Originally Posted by P 

My point is that this judgement isn't crippling on Gawker as a concern no matter what they do - it just cripples their illegal business model. I think that the $140 million will be reduced on appeal (because it always is), thereby making it even more so.

It's an immoral business model, not an illegal one. Gawker got sued in a civil court.

Originally Posted by P 

Weelllll... Hogan was able to sue, but he would not have been able to win without Thiel's money. This is why Gawker is still alive - justice is too expensive.

Of course he was, he was offered a $10 million settlement. And Hogan isn't exactly pennyless either — comparatively speaking, he's lucky.

Originally Posted by P 

And a good chunk of that money they won was punitive damages. Such is awarded specifically as a deterrent, not to compensate for the error.

But Hogan is not going to see any money as Gawker has asked for Chapter 11 protection. If this were about a large payout to Hogan (which I'm completely ok with), they should have kept Gawker's insurance in play. Now what could happen is that Hogan sees nothing whereas Denton gets a $ million payout from the buyer. That doesn't exactly strike me as fair or justice being served. And that's the reason why I object to Thiel's way of shutting down Gawker: he didn't have Hogan's best interest in mind (getting the largest payout possible) but rather his own. That's really the bit that's bugging me. If he bankrolled the legal teams for other Gawker victims and made sure that the legal team acted in the other victims' best interests, I'd feel very positively about Thiel's efforts.

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't believe in “the ends justify the means”-type of thinking.

Things aren't that black and white, but that is a philosophical discussion and we can have that some other time. My point here is that that is how Thiel is thinking.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's an immoral business model, not an illegal one. Gawker got sued in a civil court.

That is just about the definition of the word illegal. Gawker is legally liable because what they published. If you want to take the stance that that does not make their action illegal, you are effectively saying that corporations cannot do anything illegal, i.e. can't break the law, because you can't put a corporation in jail.

If you prefer, replace the word "illegal" with "legally liable". Means the same thing.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Of course he was, he was offered a $10 million settlement. And Hogan isn't exactly pennyless either — comparatively speaking, he's lucky.

He was offered cents on the dollar compared to what he was owed, according to the jury, because Gawker was confident that he did not have the ability to fight the lawsuit to get the money.

Gawker's entire business model is based around publishing what they want and then settling out of court for less money than what they make from acting like they do.

Gawker is like a delivery service that constantly runs red lights and breaks speed limits to get the packages where they need to go, and charges highly for that service. Whenever they kill someone through their actions, they pay an out of court settlement and go on as if nothing happened, because they make so much money delivering packages fast. This time someone refused to settle.

If we, as a society, think that Gawker should be allowed to publish what they do, then it should be made legal and we can stop having this debate. If we don't think they should be allowed, then this is indeed a philanthropic action.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But Hogan is not going to see any money as Gawker has asked for Chapter 11 protection. If this were about a large payout to Hogan (which I'm completely ok with), they should have kept Gawker's insurance in play.

It is not about a big payout. It is about stopping Gawker from publishing things like this.

You're taking the view Gawker should be allowed to publish what they want and then pay for it, some sort of enforced license deal. That is just not what punitive damages mean. They mean that "you should not have done this".

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Now what could happen is that Hogan sees nothing whereas Denton gets a $ million payout from the buyer.

Denton remains personally liable for part of the damages, so unless the judgement is reversed on appeal, no, that particular thing cannot happen.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That doesn't exactly strike me as fair or justice being served. And that's the reason why I object to Thiel's way of shutting down Gawker: he didn't have Hogan's best interest in mind (getting the largest payout possible) but rather his own. That's really the bit that's bugging me. If he bankrolled the legal teams for other Gawker victims and made sure that the legal team acted in the other victims' best interests, I'd feel very positively about Thiel's efforts.

Thiel effectively bought Hogan's lawsuit. The price for the lawsuit was not disclosed, but Hogan doesn't strike me as a fool. Either he agreed with the action to remove the insurance from the board, thereby accepting the risks, or he was bought out completely and compensated.

[Mike Wuerthele]

Weelllll... Hogan was able to sue, but he would not have been able to win without Thiel's money. This is why Gawker is still alive - justice is too expensive.

I don't think that's the case. Some very, very good lawyers operate that would have taken a significant percentage of a victory, and Bollea wasn't penniless, not by a long shot.

[P]

Would those lawyers have been OK with not accepting the settlement offer? Or removing the claim that brought in the insurance company?

[Mike Wuerthele]

I think that would depend on the lawyer. Bollea's not "normal people." Where a $10M settlement is WAY more than fine if I was in a similar situation, I suspect not for him.

If you're suggesting that Thiel's involvement made things different, well, sure it did. There's just no good way to assess the probabilities on what was different. Maybe a settlement-based attorney would have gone a different way, maybe not. Maybe Bollea could have paid up front for an attorney, maybe not. Don't know.

Like I said before, nobody smells good in this entire thing.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

Things aren't that black and white, but that is a philosophical discussion and we can have that some other time. My point here is that that is how Thiel is thinking.

I thought the entire point was to have a philosophical discussion. As I said in my first post, neither person did something criminal, yet I found Thiel and Gawkers actions distasteful. My posts here might seem I'm taking sides for Gawker. I'm not. I just think the positive attitude towards Thiel is misplaced.

The two main points that bug me about Thiel's behavior is that (1) he wanted to kill Gawker/Denton by winning via a surrogate case (as he wouldn't be able to sue Gawker and win for outing him) and (2) he used his substantial resources to do so. The first to me is an abuse of the spirit of the laws (as they are on the books now). The latter is not an option for ordinary people who can't bankroll several big lawsuits with top-of-the-line legal representation, so Thiel is using his money to get his way via the legal system.

Originally Posted by P 

He was offered cents on the dollar compared to what he was owed, according to the jury, because Gawker was confident that he did not have the ability to fight the lawsuit to get the money.

Perhaps it's because I'm from a country where such high damages are unheard of, but $10 million dollars is not pocket change. Hogan was offered 1/4th-1/5th of revenue and more than one year's worth of profits (I'm using 2014 numbers). That's a very significant number relative to the size of the company. Given that the current judgement exceeds the market value of Gawker (it's being auctioned off for $90–$100 million), so the judgement itself is akin to sentencing someone to life + 50 years in prison.

Originally Posted by P 

If we, as a society, think that Gawker should be allowed to publish what they do, then it should be made legal and we can stop having this debate. If we don't think they should be allowed, then this is indeed a philanthropic action.

That's a slippery slope, because any regulations could easily curb legitimate free speech. The risk of collateral damage to me is quite high, and I don't think it's worth changing the whole system over that. In fact, this is the reason why I'm concerned about Thiel's actions: it sets precedence, and while this time it may have been for the better, it is not clear that this will have to be the case in the future. I'd err on dealing with these issues as we do now: you have to sue in court.

Originally Posted by P 

You're taking the view Gawker should be allowed to publish what they want and then pay for it, some sort of enforced license deal. That is just not what punitive damages mean. They mean that "you should not have done this".

No, I'm not taking this stance at all. Gawker (or any other publication) does not have the right to publish whatever they want. But the way the system works is that Gawker needs to be taken to court for every infraction. And “you should not have done this” (and now we will punish you for it) is very different from “we'll kill you”.

Originally Posted by P 

Denton remains personally liable for part of the damages, so unless the judgement is reversed on appeal, no, that particular thing cannot happen.

Denton has already sold a minority stake of Gawker for $100 million, and I reckon Hogan will not be able to touch that. Opening bids apparently start at $90 million, so the publication will continue, albeit under new management. Of course, Gawker is appealing the judgement, and it is quite likely that the damages will be cut in the process. So if the judgement is less than $90 millioin, then Denton will benefit from this whole affair financially. That doesn't strike me as “justice served”.

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The two main points that bug me about Thiel's behavior is that (1) he wanted to kill Gawker/Denton by winning via a surrogate case (as he wouldn't be able to sue Gawker and win for outing him) and (2) he used his substantial resources to do so. The first to me is an abuse of the spirit of the laws (as they are on the books now). The latter is not an option for ordinary people who can't bankroll several big lawsuits with top-of-the-line legal representation, so Thiel is using his money to get his way via the legal system.

I think 1) can be better phrased as "he wanted Gawker to stop doing what it's doing, and the only way to make that happen is to sue them". He can't have expected to get $140 million.

And yes, he used all of that money to win, but from where I am standing, Gawker used their money to win or settle a million times before this, and they're upset because they finally met a bigger bully.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Perhaps it's because I'm from a country where such high damages are unheard of, but $10 million dollars is not pocket change. Hogan was offered 1/4th-1/5th of revenue and more than one year's worth of profits (I'm using 2014 numbers). That's a very significant number relative to the size of the company. Given that the current judgement exceeds the market value of Gawker (it's being auctioned off for $90–$100 million), so the judgement itself is akin to sentencing someone to life + 50 years in prison.

I'm also not from the US, and I agree that it is a lot of money, but to everyone in this case not named Nick Denton, the money is not relevant in itself. It is only relevant as a way to make Gawker stop what they're doing. Thiel thought that that was something worth doing.

Would $10 million dollars have been enough for Gawker to change their ways? I don't think so. Not the way Denton has been talking.

(Sidenote: I really don't like the system of punitive damages, as they tend to bring in lawyers only working for percentage. A better system would have that money go to the state, so it remains a punishment for the defendant without funding unscrupulous lawsuits)

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's a slippery slope, because any regulations could easily curb legitimate free speech. The risk of collateral damage to me is quite high, and I don't think it's worth changing the whole system over that. In fact, this is the reason why I'm concerned about Thiel's actions: it sets precedence, and while this time it may have been for the better, it is not clear that this will have to be the case in the future. I'd err on dealing with these issues as we do now: you have to sue in court.

Yes, it might be a slippery slope, but that is the argument that always gets trotted out. It is the journalism equivalent of "terrorists!" when the NSA wants to spy some more, or "think of the children" for just about anything.

What we are doing has fostered a culture of publications like Gawker, and all we're doing is throwing our hands into the air. I'm willing to try something else. There is a risk that it leads to a chilling effect, and that would be a concern, but what we're doing isn't working. Publications like that don't even take a calculated risk anymore, they knowingly do wrong and just pay up when they have to, using their unfair financial advantage to pay less than they ought to.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, I'm not taking this stance at all. Gawker (or any other publication) does not have the right to publish whatever they want. But the way the system works is that Gawker needs to be taken to court for every infraction. And “you should not have done this” (and now we will punish you for it) is very different from “we'll kill you”.

Again, deterrent. The system is supposed to deter Gawker from doing this sort of thing, and it hasn't worked, because Gawker has been able to settle their way out of it.

If you like the idea of Gawker getting taken to court for every infraction, you ought to applaud Thiel for making sure that a jury actually saw the case, instead of being just another settlement. The only real issue here then is the size of the damages, which were set by the jury, not by Thiel.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Denton has already sold a minority stake of Gawker for $100 million, and I reckon Hogan will not be able to touch that. Opening bids apparently start at $90 million, so the publication will continue, albeit under new management. Of course, Gawker is appealing the judgement, and it is quite likely that the damages will be cut in the process. So if the judgement is less than $90 million, then Denton will benefit from this whole affair financially. That doesn't strike me as “justice served”.

Denton was a plaintiff along with Gawker, he is on the hook for some percentage of the damages. I don't know how sharing of the damages work in Florida - in Sweden there can be a so-called "solidarity ruling", that all defendants are on the hook for the entire sum - but I don't know how it works here.

And I actually do think that justice is being served. If ZD buys the place, they will have to take into account the fact that if they publish garbage like this, they're on the hook for more damages. That likely means that they will have to tone down the most outrageous articles, which is how the concept of a deterrent is supposed to work.

[ort888]

This whole story boils down to... An asshole billionaire secretly funding an asshole wrestler's lawsuit against an organization of assholes.

It's the feel good story of the year!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ort888 

This whole story boils down to... An asshole billionaire secretly funding an asshole wrestler to sue an organization of assholes.

I should've asked you for writing my post, this is a pretty good summary.

[P]

The defunct Gawker media has settled with Bolea (and a few others):

Gawker Media Will Settle With Hulk Hogan and Other Litigants for $32 Million