3 ms·

Yes, Gawker deserved to lose that case. However, the Thiel involvement produced a vindictive and revenge-based strategy to try the case in such a way that Gawk

by atonse 10y ago

Yes, Gawker deserved to lose that case. However, the Thiel involvement produced a vindictive and revenge-based strategy to try the case in such a way that Gawker couldn't use their insurance to pay the damages. So I don't think anybody's arguing that Gawker shouldn't have lost that case. But it's clear the motive here wasn't just punishment, it was to put Gawker out of business. And I used to hate Gawker because of all this Valleywag nonsense they did, but they have a lot of good sites today.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
Like the site that sold that bought a stolen iPhone and bragged about it? If Gawker has any good content it's coincidence and not because they actively attempt to make it good.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  remove "that sold" from above, can't edit anymore.
wl 10y ago
Part of the purpose of tort law is to discourage tortfeasors from future misconduct. With a company as big as Gawker, insurance subverts this to some extent.
martin_bech 10y ago
I used to hate OJ Simpson because of the murders, but he was funny in the naked gun movies..
vintermann 10y ago
Do you think it should be possible to insure yourself out of liability for gross invasions of privacy? It's not the insurance company that has wronged him. It's perfectly reasonable for Bollea to seek deterrence rather than settlement money/damages. Anyone would prefer that, unless they were forced to settle for something else for money reasons. Usually the plaintiff would settle/go for damages because they have to prefer money, because going to court is damn expensive. So saying this was unfair and vindictive is presuming that the status quo, where money decides court cases, is just and reasonable. That Bollea should have been forced to go for the money because he's not really rich, he just has a rich backer. But I disagree with that. As long as money matters in court, the more people get access to multimillionaire justice the better.

by atonse 10y ago

whamlastxmas 10y ago

Like the site that sold that bought a stolen iPhone and bragged about it? If Gawker has any good content it's coincidence and not because they actively attempt to make it good.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
remove "that sold" from above, can't edit anymore.

wl 10y ago

Part of the purpose of tort law is to discourage tortfeasors from future misconduct. With a company as big as Gawker, insurance subverts this to some extent.

martin_bech 10y ago

I used to hate OJ Simpson because of the murders, but he was funny in the naked gun movies..

vintermann 10y ago

Do you think it should be possible to insure yourself out of liability for gross invasions of privacy? It's not the insurance company that has wronged him. It's perfectly reasonable for Bollea to seek deterrence rather than settlement money/damages. Anyone would prefer that, unless they were forced to settle for something else for money reasons. Usually the plaintiff would settle/go for damages because they have to prefer money, because going to court is damn expensive. So saying this was unfair and vindictive is presuming that the status quo, where money decides court cases, is just and reasonable. That Bollea should have been forced to go for the money because he's not really rich, he just has a rich backer. But I disagree with that. As long as money matters in court, the more people get access to multimillionaire justice the better.