3 ms·
You're right that this lawsuit will have the positive effect of causing people to be less likely to publish sex tapes. But it will also have the negative effec
by Buge 10y ago
You're right that this lawsuit will have the positive effect of causing people to be less likely to publish sex tapes.
But it will also have the negative effect of causing news companies to be constantly afraid of publish anything negative about a rich person, because that person might secretly fund lawsuits against them. Gawker is being sued for 2 other things besides this.
- vintermann 10y agoBut this is nothing new, and not even an especially blatant example of it, since Hogan had an excellent case, and Thiel had personal reasons to sympathize with him (as opposed to economic or other self-serving reasons). Remember the SCO saga? There are much, much worse examples of legal harassment via strawmen already, so this won't make the media any more afraid than they already have reason to be. Unless possibly in the area of publicizing sex videos without consent.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y agoThey apparently crossed several legal boundaries in publishing what they did and were blatantly unrepentant about it. I hardly see requiring news companies to follow the law to be something to be unhappy about. That aside, the wealthy and powerful have always had more influence than ordinary people. Why are people surprised about that?
- FireBeyond 10y agoEspecially when you consider that Hogan dropped the part of the suit that would have allowed Gawker to use their insurance to pay some of the liability claim. Odd, when you consider it shrunk dramatically the ability for Gawker to be able to pay the claim ($144M... Gawker only had $35M in revenue) - is the goal to be recompensed for damages, or to destroy Gawker? The latter seems much more likely, and chilling. Especially if you have a billionaire secret backer.