27 ms·
Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction
- sunstone 10y agoGawking at Gawker circling the sewer drain.
- meira 10y agoLiberals cheers for this, and get angry when Brazil blocks Whatsapp or Facebook. Logic. None.
- adamnemecek 10y agoAnd nothing of value was lost.
- baldfat 10y agoLifeHacker?
- adamnemecek 10y agoI feel like Lifehacker might have been somewhat unique in say 2006 but that whole "productivity" space has become somewhat saturated.
- nucleardog 10y agoJalopnik and kin?
- michaelmior 10y agoAny suggestions of other good sources of similar articles?
- 0xCMP 10y agoI was gonna say lifehacker isn't the same anymore for me. But I guess they do have all that content from so long ago others may not have experienced... And the latest stuff isn't so bad. There was a time I just stopped visiting because it was product placement and almost zero new information week after week.
- astrodust 10y agoLife hack: Don't read LifeHacker.
- banhfun 10y agoIt was a long time coming.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoPartially joking, I think the US Press gains further distance from Tabloid muck-racking. I'm not a trained Journalist or identify as one (different type of writing). But, in my mind, there's a "newsworthiness" level of integrity that is a pre-requisite for breaking open something that was otherwise private or hidden. This was not one of those instances IMO.
- vijayr 10y agoMaybe lifehacker?
- Negative1 10y agoA billionaire used his money and influence to destroy an organization because he doesn't agree with what they say. I can think of at least one thing of value that was lost.
- adamnemecek 10y ago> he doesn't agree with what they say That wording seems a bit too kind to Gawker.
- tmalsburg2 10y agoThe real issue is that money shouldn't play as much a role in court as it does. Many other problems discussed here like billionaires buying influence are really just corollaries to that.
- lmm 10y agoMoney and influence would have got him nowhere if Gawker had stayed within the law and/or common decency.
- dragonwriter 10y agoLaw suits occasionally come to incorrect results (the appellate process exists to mitigate this risk, and the higher burden of proof in certain cases, notably criminal cases, exists to direct which side those errors tend to fall on), punishing people who are within the bounds of law and common decency. Therefore, a deep pockets agent funding every potential lawsuit from other parties they can find (or stimulate), increasing the number of such suits and the likelihood that they will go to trial, can, simply by taking enough swings, eventually impose a combination of legal costs and judgements that will financially destroy the target; actual unlawful behavior may reduce the time it takes for this strategy to succeed, but isn't necessary for it to work. So, given Theil's demonstrated proclivities in the multiple lawsuits he was funding against Gawker, I don't think the statement that Gawker would have been okay if they had stayed within the law is warranted.
- balls187 10y agoKotaku is great. Jalopnik was pretty good.
- geerlingguy 10y agoSome context, for those who haven't been following: - Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker[1] - Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes[2] - $115M verdict in Hulk Hogan sex-tape lawsuit could wipe out Gawker[3] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11774588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11774588 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315985 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11318100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11318100
- stcredzero 10y agoNews flash: Peter Thiel does something productive with a lot of money. (This isn't the first time, but it's still newsworthy when it happens. In no small part, because it doesn't always work.)
- cm2187 10y agoIn your context, you forgot the step before those: - Gawker outs Pether Thiel
- nailer 10y agoAlso missing from the timeline: - Gawker publishes a person's sex tape without their consent.
- fullshark 10y agoThe tape was created without his consent also for the purpose of blackmail.
- smt88 10y agoYou forgot a step before that: - Peter Thiel is a hard-core activist for individual rights, including freedom of speech Thiel is pro-freedom when it suits him and anti-freedom when it doesn't. In my opinion, he has lobbied for a world where journalists can "out" people, and now he's taking revenge when it happens to harm him.
- corin_ 10y ago'The media company [...] had assets of $50 to $100 million and liabilities of $100 million to $500 million, filings showed.' http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/10/gawker-media-files-for-ch-11-bankruptcy-protection.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/10/gawker-media-files-for-ch-11-...
- mmastrac 10y agoDoes this mean the only sensible bid is between $0 to -$450M?
- kgwgk 10y agoNot necessarily, unless you think that the only sensible price for Facebook shares is $17 (instead of the current price of $117).
- ThrustVectoring 10y agoNo, because the liabilities are getting discharged with the results of the sale. Essentially, Gawker isn't selling itself. Gawker is essentially exchanging itself for the liabilities to their creditors, and the creditors are then selling it in lieu of Gawker paying their debts. Really simplified example: suppose you're 12, you own a lemonade stand, and you owe your dad $200 (secured against the lemonade stand). It's not going well, so you go through bankruptcy - dad now owns the lemonade stand, you no longer owe dad any money, and he goes and sells it for whatever he can get (say, $100). $100 is a sensible bid for the stand because the debt to the kid's dad has already been discharged.
- sib 10y agoIn general no, as they are filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy, meaning that the majority of those liabilities will be washed away.
- baldfat 10y agoMessed up lawsuit and I actually don't know what to think. 1) Gawker was garbage dwelling story makers. I am glad they aren't going to do stories anymore. 2) Who will it be the next time something happens like this will it be a actual journalist and good content producer that gets sued to death? Scared for journalist???? Also would be nice to see LifeHacker survive this.
- stcredzero 10y agoAlso would be nice to see LifeHacker survive this. Hopefully the market niche of LifeHacker will be polyfilled quickly. Also hopefully, the market niche of most of the rest of Gawker won't.
- jonah 10y agoJalopnik is a pretty good car site too. Good community and more than just regurgitated press release car reviews. Hopefully it finds a new home without too much blood loss.
- RandomBacon 10y agoI like Lifehacker and Jalopnik (except for their political posts). I used to like Gizmodo years ago, but they got too political for my taste back then. It would be nice to see Lifehacker and Jalopnik survive. I also like The Consumerist, but it was sold off to Consumer Reports and was doing okay until it was hacked. Now it's only a shell of its former self. What really made that site was the user contributions, but that died off after they closed the comments after the attack.
- MicroBerto 10y agoAt this point, I'm just going to enjoy it for what it is. Good prevailing over evil. Enjoy the wins when they're around. You can never predict the future too well anyway.
- toss1941 10y agoIf they had just reported on Hogan's affair without actually releasing the video, would they still have gotten sued?
- synaesthesisx 10y agoAh, schadenfreude at its finest!
- julian88888888 10y agohere's a summary: Gawker Media filed for bankruptcy Friday and the company will be put up for auction after a judge ruled that a $140 million jury judgment against it in a costly legal battle with former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan would stand. The sale auction will begin with an opening bid of $100 million from the digital media company and publisher Ziff Davis LLC, according to a person familiar with the matter. The sale was triggered after the judge overseeing the invasion-of-privacy case brought by Hulk Hogan—whose real name is Terry Bollea—declined to issue a stay pending Gawker’s appeal. Proceeds from a sale will go into a fund to finance further litigation costs and cover whatever damages may ultimately be leveled following the appeals process, which could take years to resolve. Two weeks ago, it emerged that Silicon Valley billionaire and investor Peter Thiel has been financing Mr. Bollea’s legal fight and other such battles involving people who Mr. Thiel feels have been targeted unfairly by the media company.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jshevek 10y agoAs a fan of privacy rights, this pleases me. Also, sites like Gawker benefit from encouraging the most base aspects of our culture. Seeing one head of the hydra getting chopped off isn't really progress, but it is satisfying.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoGossip rags come and go. As long as there are celebrities there will be celebrity tabloids. Privately funding a lawsuit for someone else so you can settle a grudge is ethically dubious, at best. The American system of allowing juries instead of judges to set reward amounts only ultimately benefits overpaid lawyers, and society as a whole is worse off from the damages of frivolous lawsuits. That's all I think there really is to say about that...
- ryanlol 10y ago>Privately funding a lawsuit for someone else so you can settle a grudge is ethically dubious, at best. Do you feel that revenge in general is ethically dubious or just the lawsuit part?
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoThe justice system in any democracy should be a level playing field in the eyes of the law, not a pay-to-play free for all.
- dragontamer 10y agoThe jury is the closest thing to a direct democracy America has. Judges can be corrupted. The jury is basically a direct poll of 12 average Americans. Its known that the court system is imperfect, but juries serve as a restraint on otherwise powerful judges.
- etimberg 10y ago> The jury is basically a direct poll of 12 average Americans Well, except for the part where the lawyers get to remove the people they don't want. It's not really random at that point.
- dragontamer 10y agoI meant that the Americans were Average Joes. Not that the jury selection process was representative of America.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mc32 10y agoPurveyors of news take note. Provide news. Don't engage in useless insight into peoples' personal peccadilloes which have little if any bearing on people at large. Don't be lured by the clickbait revenue model or trade in inconsequential lurid tales and try to pedal it as hard news.
- nostromo 10y agoGawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK. I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and close down unfavorable media outlets. I believe this will have a chilling effect on the media in the US.
- cm2187 10y agoAre you suggesting the Hogan suit was groundless?
- pcurve 10y agoIt wasn't, but the damage amount is excessive.
- icebraining 10y agoIt's interesting that it was actually higher than what the plaintiffs requested. It wasn't clear to me who sets that, the judge or the jury?
- jdmichal 10y agoJudges almost always set reward. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a heavy slap aimed at not obeying the court order to take down the video. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/sentencing-law-faq.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/sentencing-la...
- yelnatz 10y agoHow was it excessive?
- cm2187 10y agoI would say the contrary would be problematic. What if this organisation could publish any dirt on you, could publish your most intimate pictures or details and if you were suing them, they would be fined only $10k, which they wouldn't care about because they make a lot more money abusing people? I would say this would be justice and ordinary citizens being helpless against big business.
- nekosune 10y agoOh dear
- danvoell 10y agoDoes the auction include debt obligations?
- smt88 10y agoGawker's debt will be reduced by declaring bankruptcy. It'll take time to find out by how much it will be reduced.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- igorgue 10y agoThin skinned billionaires...
- smt88 10y agoI personally know several gay men who were outed against their will. In some cases it ruined their lives. One committed suicide. They didn't have billions to insulate them from the harm it caused them. None of them went on revenge campaigns for being outed, not even with their meager, non-billionaire resources.
- nailer 10y agoYou wouldn't say that if some private aspect of your own life was revealed to the public without your consent.
- x0x0 10y agoThat's how the first amendment works for public figures. And it's not as if gawker doesn't regularly break important news -- viz the crack mayor, Chris Lee / republicans cruising for strange, etc.
- nailer 10y agoNobody was trying to stop Gawker from breaking important news, or any other kind of news. That's a false narrative driven by journalists who want to be able to do anything without oversight. The issue wasn't that Gawker published that Hogan wasn't having an affair. Again: the story wasn't the issue. The story didn't go to trial. The jury was not deciding whether Gawker had a right to publish the story. The issue was Gawker publishing a sex tape to go with the story.
- badloginagain 10y agoCant read because of paywall, but I have been following along with this "dramady." I wonder what form of invasive media will fill the void in Gawkers wake. If anyone thinks this is the end of Gawkers distasteful form of journalism they are very wrong. Gawker worked. It was nasty, but it worked. Companies will form and fill the gap; but they'll be more resilient because they'll remember how Gawker fell.
- mevile 10y agoI don't like Gawker, but I like the idea of a billionaire being able to bankrupt news sites that he doesn't like even less.
- lujim 10y agoWell Gawker isn't exactly the Wall Street Journal and they didn't get the bankruptcy treatment for having a differing political opinion or some different viewpoint. They were bullying people and now they are getting bullied.
- BryantD 10y agoFalse equivalency. They bullied Thiel, and made him unhappy. I don't see any evidence that his ability to do business has been affected. Thiel has now made it impossible for Gawker to continue as a company. The effect of the bullying is vastly different.
- lujim 10y agoWho said it has anything to due with equivalency? Go try to bully your boss, or a cop, or a 6'9" meat head. You're free to try, but you might not like the result. Part of life if using your brain to determine what you are free to do vs what makes sense to do.
- whack 10y agoLibel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could have better helped inform the public. The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such recourse should be made available to every common man, regardless of wealth. But still, progress is only ever made, one step at a time. Good riddance to Gawker.
- calbear81 10y agoCan you cite any examples of libel and slander that have been published by Gawker?
- smt88 10y ago> Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy One man's libel/slander is another man's investigate journalism ("muckraking" in the US). In this particular case, Gawker wasn't guilty of either libel or slander because they didn't publish anything about Hogan that was false. > it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers It's actually much harder to win a libel/slander suit as a public figure. See: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/libel-defamation http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/libel-defamation
- pmichaud 10y agoI don't think that poster is talking about Hogan.
- taejo 10y agoYour comment exposed me to the big gap between the meanings of muckraker in US and UK English: 1. (US) One who investigates and exposes issues of corruption that often violate widely held values; e.g. one who exposes political corruption or the poor conditions in prisons. 2. (Britain) A sensationalist, scandal-mongering journalist, one who is not driven by any social principles.
- beatpanda 10y agoLovely to see Hacker News praising the wisdom of the billionaire who just managed to shut down a press outlet he didn't like. This new era of feudalism is off to a great start.
- jshevek 10y agoYes, it is great to see so many people looking at the big picture, rather than just one very narrow angle.
- benten10 10y agoI'd love to see someone suggesting suing Breitbart/Fox out of existence. I mean... they're just as 'newsful' as gawker was...
- dingo_bat 10y agoBut have Fox and Breitbart broken the law and defied a court order?
- spriggan3 10y ago"press outlet" . That billionnaire didn't force Gawker to act like scum. Good riddance.
- ryanlol 10y agoLooks like Thiel going public crushed any hopes Gawker may have had of being able to acquire funding to fight the lawsuits. Very well played by Thiel, whether or not you agree with what he did.
- benten10 10y agoDon't anger the Billionaire. He can fund the Lawsuits longer than you can stay solvent.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y agoExcept that's not what happened here.
- danso 10y agoSad in a way. AFAIK, Gawker is not only one of the few independent online media companies (VICE/Vox/BuzzFeed/BusinessInsider are heavily funded/owned by massive media conglomerates), it was one of the few media companies period making a healthy profit: http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/gawkers-pre-hogan-plan-to-become-an-800-million-tech-company-004576 http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/gawkers-pre-hoga... > The company’s revenue had grown from about $5.3 million in 2006 to $43.8 million in 2014. It was consistently profitable, with a 2014 operating income of $6.7 million. Most importantly, it had an ambitious plan to create a lucrative new revenue stream by monetizing third-party content on its proprietary online publishing platform, Kinja, that promised to deliver the site from many of the increasing pressures facing ad-supported digital publishing. I wouldn't be surprised if Gawker were the only online-only media company that was making profits in the range of millions. That Hogan video, which couldn't have brought in more than a good week's worth of traffic, was a fucking dumb way to flush a nearly billion dollar company down the toilet. For legal reasons, Gawker has publicly stood by the former editor who published the post (and then who went on to create another Gawker-like site [1], that immediately folded because of non-traffic), but I wonder if Gawker employees are privately treating him like a pariah. [1] http://ratter.com/ http://ratter.com/
- cloakandswagger 10y agoI find it kind of perverse to champion a company based solely on their profitability. Gawker was a profitable media company because they were one of the the only ones debased enough to resort to muckraking for their tasteless, voyeuristic audiences. Good riddance, I say.
- danso 10y agoYeah, there were definitely other instances of lines being crossed, but for which Gawker would not have been sued, because the subjects didn't have Hogan's celebrity (or Thiel's backing): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-editor-AJ-Daulerio-refused-college-girl-s-pleas-possible-rape-video.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-edito... As much great journalism Gawker has produced, we can't ignore that such work was mostly loss-leaders, and not likely what drove its revenue and popularity. The decision to post the Hogan video was just a symptom of that culture, albeit a fatal symptom.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- smt88 10y agoThiel was already out of the closet: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker-didnt-out-peter-thiel_b_10141996.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker-... I also think that outing a wealthy, powerful man like Thiel is beneficial to society. It hopefully increases acceptance of homosexuality. Of all people who are hurt by being outed in a major publication, Thiel is probably near the end of the list, since he was already out among his associates and extremely wealthy.
- ryanwaggoner 10y agoFortunately, the rule of law as it applies to harm done to an individual isn't generally ignored because of some extremely vague and dubious benefit to the greater good.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- spriggan3 10y ago> Thiel was already out of the closet Tim Geithner's brother wasn't. Gawker is going down and that's a good thing. What people do in private is not Gawker's business. > major publication A bunch of scums and dishonest people who call themselves journalists. If I was a journalist, I would hate being put in the same bag as Gawker's employees.
- keepper 10y agoA racist billionaire[1], funding another racist millionaire[2], supporting another racist billionaire[3] But everyone seems to be ok with this, because of pseudo libertarianism? Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny." Oh man... what is going on!?! [1]https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448 https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic... [2]http://nypost.com/2015/07/24/why-is-wwe-frantically-scrubbing-hulk-hogan-mentions/ http://nypost.com/2015/07/24/why-is-wwe-frantically-scrubbin... [3]http://www.salon.com/2016/06/09/donald_trumps_response_to_republicans_worried_about_his_racist_statements_relax_dont_be_so_politically_correct/ http://www.salon.com/2016/06/09/donald_trumps_response_to_re... [3a]http://www.wired.com/2016/05/investor-peter-thiel-will-california-delegate-trump/ http://www.wired.com/2016/05/investor-peter-thiel-will-calif...
- cthor 10y agoThere's some perverse doublethink going on when it's considered racist to suggest we stop discriminating on the basis of race.
- keepper 10y agoHe's expressed support on the "right" of businesses to discriminate based on race/gender/etc[1]. As well as libertarianism being critical of the civil rights act, the civil war, etc [2]. How is that doublethink? [1] http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education... [2] http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/16/racism-civil-rights-and-libert http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/16/racism-civil-rights-an...
- lsaferite 10y agoPlease provide reputable sources for your claims.
- bionsuba 10y ago"A racist billionaire[1]" Penn Jillette has a great saying on this (paraphrasing): "Unless the person has explicitly said they're racist, claiming someone is racist requires the power to look into someone's heart, which no one has. The KKK and stormfront are very open that they are racists, and you can call those people racist because they say they are. You cannot make these sorts of claims without putting words into other people's mouth". And you're putting words in someone's mouth. According to that article, Thiel believes that affirmative action is not helping the poor or disenfranchised, but is rather helping the middle and upper class people. Extrapolating racism from his statements is a giant leap in logic.
- pmarreck 10y agoI'm torn between everyone having their privacy and ripping the band-aid off by exposing everyone's private life at once so we see how things really are instead of how we think them to be For instance, I'd bet that many marriages are largely keeping up appearances while hiding some big secrets which would put the whole concept of "Western marriage" at risk (perhaps justifiably)
- FilterSweep 10y agoHmmm.... Do you need to see how everyone's private life is, or is this just curiosity? Sure, if you can live with the unnecessary consequences of how some people might react when their private lives are exposed - Ashley Madison Hack[0] provides a salient recent example [1]. Furthermore, it is obvious to many that some marriages are all for appearances. But they are also for children. They're also to appease nuclear and extended family. I don't understand the line of thinking where you could justify needing to know which other families are staying together "for the children" or "to keep their parents happy." Is it any of your business? Humans have kept their thoughts to themselves throughout their entire history (citation needed). Because the data collection practices of the Internet deceive the average person into giving their private thoughts to a SERP or telemetry-ridden OS, that gives you the right to "rip the bandaid" off everyone? [0]: http://fusion.net/story/195787/whats-going-on-with-ashley-madison/ http://fusion.net/story/195787/whats-going-on-with-ashley-ma... [1]: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-ashely-madison-leak-puts-thousands-women-lgbt-lives-risk http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-ashely-madison...
- chillacy 10y agoThough I am personally very pro-privacy, I do think about the parent poster's thoughts sometimes. I have a thought that goes like this: Masturbation. For a long time, this was taboo, both for families and in public discourse (sitcom innuendos, not really taught in lots of sex ed classes, NASA not commenting on space masturbation). We didn't really talk about it, so you'd end up with kids doing this and feeling ashamed. On one hand I see the pro-privacy argument that my business is private, and if gawker posted a blog post on my masturbation habits, it would be deeply intrusive. However in the absence of privacy, we'd see that this is not a big deal, and everyone does it. The latter scenario is the world I'd want to live in, the former is the world I do live in. So privacy allows us to live lives as we would like, while maintaining the appearance that we're living our lives as society allows. This is very good, but at the same time, you could just relax society's restrictions with the same result.
- soneca 10y agoIMO, Thiel did not bought the justice, it only worked out fine for him because a just judge ruled that Gawker was wrong according to the law. And those who think he de facto bought the law; they should fight for the justice system itself to be reformed, not shaming or trying to regulate who pays the lawyers bill (although I think it could be a public information).
- intrasight 10y agoGood riddance. They took a gamble and lost. That's business. That's life.
- sheepleherd 10y agothey took a gamble and lost, that's business != good riddance
- jonah 10y agoI hope Jalopnik survives largely intact. It's one of the better/more entertaining general car sites put there.
- jagger27 10y agoWhatever the outcome, I hope Jalopnik sticks around.
- univalent 10y agoThe size of the award is insane. Wrongful death suits are awarded far lower amounts.
- jkern 10y agoHonestly that's the part of this story that stands out to me. Clearly Gawker was in the wrong for posting the sex tape, but the size of the punishment seems massively disproportionate.
- slavik81 10y agoIt seems fairly common for judges to end up having to reduce the amount that juries award. If you look at responses to news articles about fines against companies, many people immediately compare them against the company's revenues or net worth as a measure of how fair the amounts were. I presume that's how juries see these things as well.
- markplindsay 10y agoThat's what happens when you're a news organization critical of Silicon Valley, and a tech billionaire doesn't like it. Which media outlet is next on Thiel's hit list?
- olliej 10y agoIts amazing how many people are coming to claim this is "100% awesome", but in another thread will say that reddit closing threads that share stolen nudes or preteen porn is censorship that should be illegal and is demonstrating the power of SJWs.
- cjahsh 10y agoThere's not a lot of evidence that these are the same people. You know not everyone on the internet is the same??
- makomk 10y agoOn the other hand, I seem to recall there being no shortage of people who attacked Reddit over people posting revenge porn but sided with Gawker on this. Especially in the media. (Not just talking Gawker employees either, though there were plenty of those from all it's sub-publications.)
- tomp 10y agoThey're just mimicking Gawker, who was condemning the Fappening but championing Hogan's sex tape :)
- strictnein 10y agoYou decimated those make believe opponents who don't exist.
- soheil 10y agoIt's worthwhile to remember free speech is not absolute. There are several cases where it's not considered free speech, here are some examples: Obscenity, Fighting words, Defamation (includes libel, slander) Child pornography, Perjury, Blackmail, Incitement to imminent lawless action, True threats, Solicitations to commit crimes. I know people love to protect freedom of speech and I'm on that bandwagon, but please let's remember just because it appears freedom of speech is being violated doesn't mean it is (e.g. in cases were most people don't support something and it appears the mob rule is triumph, it should indeed be sign that something may be wrong but let's not use that sign as enough evidence that free speech is violated.) Sometimes it's not the freedom of speech that is being violated, but some person's rights.
- kebolio 10y ago>kotaku Hopefully Gawker's demise will wipe out Kotaku forever as well. Whatever your views on the GamerGate movement (I certainly don't like what it has turned into thanks to /pol/), the corruption and collusion of Kotaku "journalists" is disgusting and unacceptable.
- zecho 10y agooh yeah for sure man
- xlm1717 10y agoThe whole gawker media "empire" was despicable. This is reflected by the fact that so many were ambivalent or supportive of the lawsuit against gawker. Glad to have them gone.
- dang 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878202 and marked it off-topic.
- josh_carterPDX 10y agoGawker didn't fail because of anything other than a complete lack of integrity. They were aggressive, manipulative, and unethical. I remember we had a co-working space where Gawker had some people. We couldn't say shit out loud and had to make sure our screens could not be seen by anyone else in the building. There's nothing more unnerving than actually feeling as though someone was watching/stalking you. This company and the people they employed were vultures. To call this thing a publication is an insult to people who are actually digging up stories that have an impact to society. This was worse than the National Enquirer and the world is a better place without them part of it. Good riddance.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- incompletewoot 10y agoI wonder if Thiel will follow the management around waiting to pounce on them doing something else, just to solidify his brand. Kinda like the IRS loves seeing reporting of people suffering from IRS & tax problems as an advertisement to not mess with the IRS.
- grellas 10y agoA few thoughts: 1. The pressure point here was a court ruling declining to stay enforcement of the $140M judgment pending appeal. This left Gawker having to post a $50M bond in order to avoid enforcement proceedings by which its assets could have been seized and its business literally dismantled. Gawker may or may not ultimately prove to have a successful basis upon which to get this judgment reversed but, without a stay of enforcement, it had no way of staying alive until it could have the matter decided by the appellate courts. No stay, no hope. 2. The bankruptcy filing, then, forces Gawker to give up its business but gives a vehicle by which the parties in interest behind the company can get $100+M by which to continue the fight through appeal in hopes of getting the judgment reversed and presumably leaving them with some significant value to salvage from what is now a desperate situation. 3. Concerning the social policy question here, it has repeatedly been framed as whether it is proper for a super-wealthy individual to fund another party's litigation to get payback or for some other suspect reason and what implications this has on the news media. This is a proper question but it is framed too narrowly. The broader question is whether the law should permit any third-party funding of litigation where the funder has otherwise has no connection with the merits of the dispute. Historically, the answer to that question was an emphatic no. Indeed, that sort of activity was defined as a crime - specifically, the crime of "maintenance." The statutes defining this crime originated in England and dated back the 1200's and so could truly be called ancient of origin. Basically, the idea back then was that feudal lords should not be permitted to use their wealth to interfere with legal process and thereby to potentially corrupt. By the 1700's, William Blackstone summed up the nature of the offense (as part of his famous work summing up all of the English common law) by defining maintenance as "officious intermeddling in a suit that no way belongs to one" and called it an "offense against public justice, as it keeps alive strife and contention and perverts the remedial process of the law into an engine of oppression." In contrast to this long-established hostility toward the interfering use of wealth to influence the judicial process, modern attitudes (dating back at least 50 years) came to see more litigation as being good for society as it could be used as a tool to help correct inequities in society - hence the litigation explosion. Owing to this changed attitude, many erstwhile barriers to open-ended litigation came tumbling down and along with them came the near-universal repeal of the crime of maintenance (and the related offenses of "champerty" and "barratry"). With this repeal, it became open season for any wealthy person wanting to fund anybody else's litigation for whatever purpose suited him. If people have a problem with that, that is the issue that should be addressed and not a narrow issue involving added protections for the press only. Litigation abuse is litigation abuse; if it is bad for the press, it is bad as well for other victims in society. 4. To illustrate how this sort of intermeddling tainted the processes in this case: lawyers routinely will add claims that will bring in insurance defense coverage to ensure that they can collect on any judgment but here the lawyers were directed to exclude a claim that would have allowed Gawker to bring in its insurer to cover costs of defense and potentially any judgment; parties also routinely will make serious efforts to settle any high-stakes litigation at various critical points but here it was all scorched-earth all the way to the bitter end with no prospect of the parties achieving a reasonable settlement along the way. I don't think too many people will shed a tear over the demise of Gawker but the public policy issue here is an important one. Can the modern mindset - so enamored with the supposed benefits of expanding redress through litigation - ever go back to reinstating laws forbidding "maintenance"? I doubt it. But perhaps the time is right for a debate and reconsideration. I think we are otherwise left a little unsettled over what the promiscuous scattering of third-party money throughout the courts might do. Whatever it is, it likely is not good.
- elcapitan 10y agoI wonder what kind of horrible stuff they'll put up for sale that they probably didn't dare to publish themselves.
- leothekim 10y agoThe thing I have trouble reconciling is that the merits of the case were judged in a court of law and found in favor for Hogan and against Gawker. AFAICT, the fact that Thiel was funding Hogan's case only became widely known after the judgment. Honest question - would there have been the same judgment against Gawker if Thiel didn't fund the case? I also have trouble understanding how what Gawker did as ethical journalism, relativistically speaking or otherwise. It's hard to compare a sex tape of a former wrestler to uncovering scandals in a major institution, like the Washington Post did for Watergate, the NY Times did with the Pentagon Papers, the Boston Globe with the sexual predation in the Catholic church, or even what every major media outlet published with the Monica Lewinsky affair. Publishing this sex tape was for clickbait, which is purely about metrics and much less about holding our institutions and public figures accountable for unethical or illegal activity.
- BFatts 10y agoYAY! Score 1 for decency in the media!
- BFatts 10y agoYAY! Score 1 for decency in the media!
- cloudjacker 10y agoAnybody want to set up a group buy for Jezebel? I want to shape what women think about to be more in line with my image of reality. partially kidding
- alistproducer2 10y agoAny lawyer here care ti tell why the following would not work? 1. Start new corporation 2. Buy new set of domain name with said corporation 3. Redirect Gawker (and other gawker sites) to new domains until they sell the carcass of the now-defunct Gawker.
- willvarfar 10y agoI just don't get why Gawker was an American company. If you want to do something sue-worthy, just base your legal self in some uncooperative country e.g. Russia?
- hoodoof 10y agoWill Darth Thiel now give Hulk Hogan the money he won't get from the court outcome? Or is Hulk Hogan left as just a pawn in the game, with the court victory but no payout?
- meeper16 10y agoI bet Peter Theil is masturbating on himself.
- Fej 10y agoNothing of value was lost. Good riddance. Of course, they may very well just end up under a new owner, which might change things... a little... hopefully.