12 ms·

Gawker 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

Gawker 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 ago
Are you suggesting the Hogan suit was groundless?
- pcurve 10y ago
  It wasn't, but the damage amount is excessive.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    It'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 ago
      Judges 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 ago
    How was it excessive?
  - cm2187 10y ago
    I 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.
  - kebolio 10y ago
    I agree somewhat; the judge still could have bankrupted Gawker without taking too much off the number
- axlee 10y ago
  I think the damage was not worth putting tens (hundreds?) of people out of a job, most of them who had nothing to do with the Hogan fiasco but are still being punished for it, putting their livelihood in jeopardy for the emotional comfort of a billionaire. The people responsible for the piece should have been personally held responsible.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    Regarding people losing their jobs - that is a result of the terrible judgement and values of the leadership of Gawker. They are not being 'punished' for anything. Do you think that the people at Ford were 'punished' when the leadership of Ford made bad decisions that cost people their jobs? "emotional comfort of a billionaire" That is very dismissive. Are people worth less to you when they have more money?
    - qq66 10y ago
      > Do you think that the people at Ford were 'punished' when the leadership of Ford made bad decisions that cost people their jobs? Yes
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - jshevek 10y ago
        How can you justify that position? There are consequences to our choices, but they don't always follow a moral principle. If I have two job offers and choose the company that ends up going bankrupt, I'm not being punished. If I'm a farmer and plant according to weather predictions which prove false, losing crops and revenue, that might be bad luck or bad judgement, but its not punishment.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    I am about as worried about gawker employees losing their jobs than I am about ISIS fighters losing their jobs. These guys are making money outing people and publishing sex tapes.
- mhurron 10y ago
  The issue I have with it is that money from an external source that had nothing to do with the suit was funnelled in to use it as a weapon. Thiel had an issue with Gawker, Thiel should have taken it to Gawker.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    Why have a problem with that? If Gawker was not in the wrong that would've been money wasted. It's not like Hogan/Thiel wore Gawker out by whittling them down with frivolous lawsuits until they couldn't defend themselves anymore.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      That's precisely what Thiel's doing though -- He just hit the jackpot with the Hogan amount. He's also funding several other suits against Gawker including one from someone who claimed to have invented email. He's like a terrible patent troll for journalism. The Gizmodo article that Thiel thinks is worth suing Gawker over: http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-invent-email http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-inv...
      - GVIrish 10y ago
        Ah ok, that is not something I've seen mentioned anywhere else. Still, Gawker is/was big enough that several frivolous lawsuits would've been unlikely to cause bankruptcy if none of them resulted in an adverse judgment. I have to think Thiel's goal was more to fire multiple shots and hope one finds its mark.
      - FireBeyond 10y ago
        What jackpot? They could have gotten the insurance payout. Except they dropped that part of the suit specifically so Gawker could not use the insurance it had purchased for this reason.
        mikeyouse 10y ago
- x0x0 10y ago
  Yeah, pretty much. There is no way Hogan wasn't a public figure. viz him talking to Howard Stern about his sex life. Gawker had, under previous First Amendment jurisprudence, the right to post that tape. Most free speech lawyers assume it will be reversed on appeal. This is completely separate from whether they should have posted that tape.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
princeb 10y ago
what precedent? that if you say something, you stand by the consequences, financial and all? that people take responsibility for what they say is not a new development. new journals are free to start up and take the place of gawker. nothing here stops them from doing so.
- hartator 10y ago
  Free speech is the opposite of that.
  - Navarr 10y ago
    Freedom of speech protects you from government persecution. That's not happening here.
    - BurningFrog 10y ago
      The Sixth Judicial Court of Florida is part of the government.
      - jdbernard 10y ago
        Adjudicating between two private parties. Or are you advocating for privately-owned courts?
        BurningFrog 10y ago
        Adjudicating according to government made laws. Not advocating anything here really. Just pointing out that the "first amendment only applies to government actions" argument isn't valid in this case.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    I think you may be over-simplifying.
- apendleton 10y ago
jshevek 10y ago
I like this precedent. Even celebrities have a right to some privacy.
draw_down 10y ago
Yes, I agree. This is a worrying sign of what the future holds. But also I hated Gawker, so, difficult to feel too sorry about this particular development.
ebbv 10y ago
I agree. I never read Gawker or any of its sites, they were all garbage. And the Hulk Hogan sex tape was scummy garbage that I never had any interest in. But it also isn't that different from lots of other celebrity leaks that have been published before which have not resulted in damages that ruined the publishers. Peter Thiel funding a lawsuit against a company he has a personal grudge against is a scary thing. What if the Koch Brothers decide to start funding lawsuits against Nature or Science magazines that publisher articles about global warming? Even if none of the lawsuits win, they could shut down these publications because of the legal bills involved in the court cases. People celebrating this are in my opinion incredibly myopic.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  > What if the Koch Brothers decide to start funding lawsuits against Nature or Science magazines that publisher articles about global warming? Even if none of the lawsuits win, they could shut down these publications because of the legal bills involved in the court cases. That would be scary but nothing was stopping them from doing that before. In the case of Gawker they lost in court because they were wrong, they didn't run out of money due to attrition.
- eanzenberg 10y ago
  Let the Koch brothers sue whoever they want. They can in this country. If they want to waste their money on frivolousness and get thrown out with contempt + paying the other side's legal fees than so be it.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  >What if the Koch Brothers decide to start funding lawsuits against Nature or Science magazines that publisher articles about global warming? If those articles were somehow actually legally libellous, that would be fine. But that seems unlikely.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > I agree. I never read Gawker or any of its sites, they were all garbage. Well, no, some of the sites under the Gawker umbrella were quite excellent. That's one more thing to lay at the feet of Nick Denton; his irresponsible behavior is going to take down some pretty good journalism along with the cesspool that was Gawker proper.
ambulancechaser 10y ago
I don't believe that this case set any new precedent.
- jshevek 10y ago
  I think they may have meant 'precedent' in some colloquially sense of the word, not the legal definition. Maybe "Successful action which encourages others to attempt the same" or something like that.
chatmasta 10y ago
We have limits on speech when it comes to private information. Should "free speech" allow gawker to publish a private citizen's sex tape? There is no "in the public interest" argument to apply here.
- olliej 10y ago
  Ues there is - hogan is a public figure who is involved in politics and has repeatedly announced his conservative/be faithful/young-people-have-loose-morals bullshit. Hence cheating on his wife was news, the public should have been informed, and unlike that fappening this wasnt stolen.
  - jdminhbg 10y ago
    I'm not sure why you think reporting that Hogan was cheating is what Gawker was sued for. Plenty of people have done that, with no repercussions.
  - andromeduck 10y ago
    You can do that without releasing the tape
  - littletimmy 10y ago
    Cheating on his wife may have been news (I disagree, but just for the sake of argument let's say that's true). The gratuitous porn video was in every way NOT news. A news organization should not have the right to publish a sex tape to establish dubious morality. It also should not have the right to publish Hogan taking a straining shit if he appeared previously in a hemorrhoid commercial. There are standards in civilized society.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on media we should all be applauding. Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what the hand-wringing about is about.
- smt88 10y ago
  > Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video. What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? That was a private video, probably made illegally. Journalism is about making private things public when it suits the public. An individual (who is directly impacted by the revelations) should not be able to use the courts to crush that journalism. Gawker has been repugnant and they shouldn't have done what they did to Hogan, but there could still be a bad precedent here.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    The thoughts of a politician running for office ARE in the public interest because that person is campaigning to be elected to be a decision maker in the country. Video of people having sex may be something the public is interested in, but it is not in the public interest. It's none of the public's business and the public should find more interesting things to be interested in.
    - smt88 10y ago
      Hogan has considered running for office multiple times, including saying he wants to be Trump's running mate[1]. Why should we distinguish between a powerful, famous businessman and actor and a politician? Anyone powerful and famous should be a public figure on the same footing. 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/29/hulk-hogan-i-want-be-trumps-running-mate-vice-pres/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/29/hulk-hogan-i...
cloakandswagger 10y ago
I only wish people were as ardently Constitutionalist when it came to other amendments (e.g., the one after free speech). I for one am overjoyed with this news and have no concern whatsoever that it will be the death knell of legitimate journalism. Voyeuristic muck like Gawker makes society ugly.
partiallypro 10y ago
I'm a free speech absolutist, but what precedent does this set that's new? The person that leaked the "Fappening" items is also being prosecuted, why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture.
- jshevek 10y ago
  Yes, exactly. After Thiel was revealed as the financier, some in the media saw an opportunity to re-caste the narrative in a way that they knew would appeal to our hatred of the rich and our fear for their abuse of power. The story became all about Thiel the alleged bully, the abuser of power, his petty grudge, etc etc. It was effective manipulation, just look at the comments here from those who think this 'sets a bad precedent'. Never mind that Thiel's side was right and Gawker was wrong. Never mind that the mechanism employed to achieve justice here is basically the same mechanism that the ACLU uses.
  - deong 10y ago
    Firstly, the ACLU is open about it. There's no way to know, but my guess is that had Thiel stepped up in public a few years ago and said, "Gawker is a terrible gossip rag that needs to be taught a lesson -- contact me if they've wronged you too, and I'll help you mount a case", people would be less angry at him. People don't like the idea that a shadowy cabal can run things behind the scenes without any public scrutiny. Secondly, the ACLU does not generally appear vindictive. The ACLU looks to fund cases with a motive that people generally understand to be making things better for American society. Thiel may claim that removing Gawker from the face of the earth is a public service, but given the obvious history, that seems laughable. He appears vindictive, not altruistic.
    - partiallypro 10y ago
      The ACLU is only public about it because part of their mission is to raise awareness. They have PR blitzes to publicize new cases they are taking on.
- 10y ago
Fenntrek 10y ago
Why? It went to Court and went through the due process, that process hasn't prior to this case and it wont after this case and the constitution remains the same. If you publish, you deal with the repercussions, whether positive or negative. The only thing I dislike is that it takes a billionaire to help a millionaire financially to give the case a fair chance while the less wealthy are powerless and without aid to even start a similar battle.
lujim 10y ago
Gawker can say or publish whatever they want and the Feds won't come throw them behind bars, but free speech doesn't make someone immune to ALL repercussions. You are free to go tell your boss whatever you want, but it might impact you financially. You are also free to spread rumors about whoever you want but you might get dragged into civil court and fined if you unjustly harm that person.
will_brown 10y ago
>It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. There is a difference between protecting a group from being silenced by the Government and holding a private company liable when they release a sex tape under the pretense of freedom of speech/freedom of the press. >I believe this will have a chilling effect on the media in the US. As well it should...its not exactly a slippery slope: sex tapes don't become newsworthy just because the subject is a celebrity.
- smt88 10y ago
  > sex tapes don't become newsworthy just because the subject is a celebrity What if the sex might have been non-consensual (see: Dominique Strauss-Kahn)? What if the sex is between a public official and his employee (see: Bill Clinton)? What if the sex is illegal (see: Eliot Spitzer)? The fact is that sex can be of interest to the public, which means video of that sex can also be of interest to the public.
  - rwz 10y ago
    In all mentioned cases the sex becomes sexual assault, which is a felony. It's very different from adult people consensually enjoying themselves.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      Sorry? Engaging a prostitute is sexual assault? How exactly is it "very different from adult people consensually enjoying themselves"?
  - danielweber 10y ago
    Do let us know when that situation happens.
    - smt88 10y ago
      http://gawker.com/5741535/police-find-photographs-of-berlusconis-bunga-bunga-parties http://gawker.com/5741535/police-find-photographs-of-berlusc... (An irony that the first site that came up was Gawker)
xwowsersx 10y ago
You're making a common mistake here about free speech. Free speech in the First Amendment is a restriction on the government, not individuals. The reason we treasure it so much is because of the history of government's in Europe and elsewhere restricting the speech of individuals. Having experienced the perils of government censorship themselves, the Framers put this into the Constitution. Free speech has never meant "You have a right to say anything you want without consequences".
broahmed 10y ago
I'd be more concerned about the precedent it set if Gawker had won. The publishing of secrets derived from an invasion of privacy is defensible by "free speech" if something of great moral/ethical imperative is gained. Publishing papers that reveal years of lying and misleading the American public about the true extent of the US government's involvement in Vietnam and surrounding countries, aka the Pentagon Papers? Defensible. Publishing a videotape without consent of someone having sex? Gawker can scream "free speech" till they're blue in the face; I think your average person is going to recognize a blatant violation of privacy occurred with little gained. Look, I get it: free speech = awesome. But I don't think your average person sees free speech as an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
soheil 10y ago
It'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.
protomyth 10y ago
> Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. That you have to have serious cash to hold a news site accountable? We are not talking about a charity, Gawker is a multi-million dollar business. I am glad Thiel did this and I hope it has a chilling effect on the media in the US. They weren't printing news, they were going for titillation that just happened embarrass someone they didn't like. Corruption in political figures, fine, but not this crud.
CM30 10y ago
How about the opposite precedent? The idea that if your adversaries don't have money, you can seemingly publish whatever you like (legality and morality be damned) knowing they can't afford to sue you/defeat your large legal team? The only thing stopping Gawker being crushed before was the fact it had a multi million dollar corporation behind it, and was happy to flat out ignore any complaints they didn't like. Now someone with more money comes along, they get smashed to a pulp and everything somehow changes.
- internaut 10y ago
  Well put. I think a silent majority of journalists are thinking this while their less introspective colleagues reduce the situation to David vs Goliath. I'm with David Friedman on this. http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/05/ot51-alien-vs-threadator/#comment-369046 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/05/ot51-alien-vs-threadato... Making tort claims marketable solves multiple problems: 1. The tort victim who can’t afford a lawyer. He may be able to get a law firm to take the case for a share of the award, but … 2. How does he know which law firm will do a good job, which do a bad job, which sell him out for some covert payment? If he can sell his claim, all he needs to know is which firm offers him the highest price. I know some liberals think libertarians are gaga for markets but it seems like this would serve their egalitarian goals as well. Personally I had never considered the potential for the first point but now it seems obvious.
karmacondon 10y ago
There will be no ceiling effect because real journalists stay within the bounds of the law. Equating a self proclaimed gossip website with real reporting is disingenuous and insulting to journalists. If the National Enquirer broke the law and was sued, do you really think it would affect decision making at the NYT or Washington Post?
Lawtonfogle 10y ago
If you care about free speech as it relates to porn, then this is nothing compared to some of the other limits put on free speech. Consider the Australian guy who was convicted for having sexualized drawings of the Simpsons. Edit: grrrrr autocorrect
untog 10y ago
For those who don't see anything wrong with this because Gawker is Gawker, I present to you a very similar case involving Mother Jones: http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-sued-us-we-won-we-still-have-big-legal-bills-pay http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-sued... The story they reported was 100% correct, but they were still sued by the billionaire political donor that was the subject of the story. The case was eventually thrown out of court, yet it still cost Mother Jones $2.5m to defend themselves. That was enough to drive them to the brink of bankruptcy.
mathattack 10y ago
It's precedent on both sides. On the one hand it's "A rich billionaire with pockets deeper than a media organization, funding a lawsuit" On the other hand it's "A media organization that posts what they want because it's too costly to sue them" Perhaps the precedent is "Don't try to make a quick buck posting sex tapes without permission just because you don't think someone can afford to come after you"? It's not as black and white as most free speech and freedom of the press issues.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
They already have, in many cases. The Aryan Nations was shut down due to third parties funding a (legitimate) lawsuit. https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan-v-aryan-nations https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... Think tanks have been subpoenaed over AGW skepticism: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-into-silence-on-global-warming https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenae... Media organizations have been prevented from reporting on Hillary Clinton during a political campaign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC This sort of thing has been common practice for a long time. The only real difference is that this time the media sees the victim as being part of their tribe and the attacker being part of an opposing tribe.

cm2187 10y ago

Are you suggesting the Hogan suit was groundless?

pcurve 10y ago
It wasn't, but the damage amount is excessive.
- icebraining 10y ago
  It'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 ago
    Judges 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 ago
  How was it excessive?
- cm2187 10y ago
  I 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.
- kebolio 10y ago
  I agree somewhat; the judge still could have bankrupted Gawker without taking too much off the number
axlee 10y ago
I think the damage was not worth putting tens (hundreds?) of people out of a job, most of them who had nothing to do with the Hogan fiasco but are still being punished for it, putting their livelihood in jeopardy for the emotional comfort of a billionaire. The people responsible for the piece should have been personally held responsible.
- jshevek 10y ago
  Regarding people losing their jobs - that is a result of the terrible judgement and values of the leadership of Gawker. They are not being 'punished' for anything. Do you think that the people at Ford were 'punished' when the leadership of Ford made bad decisions that cost people their jobs? "emotional comfort of a billionaire" That is very dismissive. Are people worth less to you when they have more money?
  - qq66 10y ago
    > Do you think that the people at Ford were 'punished' when the leadership of Ford made bad decisions that cost people their jobs? Yes
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - jshevek 10y ago
      How can you justify that position? There are consequences to our choices, but they don't always follow a moral principle. If I have two job offers and choose the company that ends up going bankrupt, I'm not being punished. If I'm a farmer and plant according to weather predictions which prove false, losing crops and revenue, that might be bad luck or bad judgement, but its not punishment.
- cm2187 10y ago
  I am about as worried about gawker employees losing their jobs than I am about ISIS fighters losing their jobs. These guys are making money outing people and publishing sex tapes.
mhurron 10y ago
The issue I have with it is that money from an external source that had nothing to do with the suit was funnelled in to use it as a weapon. Thiel had an issue with Gawker, Thiel should have taken it to Gawker.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  Why have a problem with that? If Gawker was not in the wrong that would've been money wasted. It's not like Hogan/Thiel wore Gawker out by whittling them down with frivolous lawsuits until they couldn't defend themselves anymore.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    That's precisely what Thiel's doing though -- He just hit the jackpot with the Hogan amount. He's also funding several other suits against Gawker including one from someone who claimed to have invented email. He's like a terrible patent troll for journalism. The Gizmodo article that Thiel thinks is worth suing Gawker over: http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-invent-email http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-inv...
    - GVIrish 10y ago
      Ah ok, that is not something I've seen mentioned anywhere else. Still, Gawker is/was big enough that several frivolous lawsuits would've been unlikely to cause bankruptcy if none of them resulted in an adverse judgment. I have to think Thiel's goal was more to fire multiple shots and hope one finds its mark.
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      What jackpot? They could have gotten the insurance payout. Except they dropped that part of the suit specifically so Gawker could not use the insurance it had purchased for this reason.
      - mikeyouse 10y ago
x0x0 10y ago
Yeah, pretty much. There is no way Hogan wasn't a public figure. viz him talking to Howard Stern about his sex life. Gawker had, under previous First Amendment jurisprudence, the right to post that tape. Most free speech lawyers assume it will be reversed on appeal. This is completely separate from whether they should have posted that tape.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

princeb 10y ago

what precedent? that if you say something, you stand by the consequences, financial and all? that people take responsibility for what they say is not a new development. new journals are free to start up and take the place of gawker. nothing here stops them from doing so.

hartator 10y ago
Free speech is the opposite of that.
- Navarr 10y ago
  Freedom of speech protects you from government persecution. That's not happening here.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    The Sixth Judicial Court of Florida is part of the government.
    - jdbernard 10y ago
      Adjudicating between two private parties. Or are you advocating for privately-owned courts?
      - BurningFrog 10y ago
        Adjudicating according to government made laws. Not advocating anything here really. Just pointing out that the "first amendment only applies to government actions" argument isn't valid in this case.
- jshevek 10y ago
  I think you may be over-simplifying.
apendleton 10y ago

jshevek 10y ago

I like this precedent. Even celebrities have a right to some privacy.

draw_down 10y ago

Yes, I agree. This is a worrying sign of what the future holds. But also I hated Gawker, so, difficult to feel too sorry about this particular development.

ebbv 10y ago

I agree. I never read Gawker or any of its sites, they were all garbage. And the Hulk Hogan sex tape was scummy garbage that I never had any interest in. But it also isn't that different from lots of other celebrity leaks that have been published before which have not resulted in damages that ruined the publishers. Peter Thiel funding a lawsuit against a company he has a personal grudge against is a scary thing. What if the Koch Brothers decide to start funding lawsuits against Nature or Science magazines that publisher articles about global warming? Even if none of the lawsuits win, they could shut down these publications because of the legal bills involved in the court cases. People celebrating this are in my opinion incredibly myopic.

GVIrish 10y ago
> What if the Koch Brothers decide to start funding lawsuits against Nature or Science magazines that publisher articles about global warming? Even if none of the lawsuits win, they could shut down these publications because of the legal bills involved in the court cases. That would be scary but nothing was stopping them from doing that before. In the case of Gawker they lost in court because they were wrong, they didn't run out of money due to attrition.
eanzenberg 10y ago
Let the Koch brothers sue whoever they want. They can in this country. If they want to waste their money on frivolousness and get thrown out with contempt + paying the other side's legal fees than so be it.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
>What if the Koch Brothers decide to start funding lawsuits against Nature or Science magazines that publisher articles about global warming? If those articles were somehow actually legally libellous, that would be fine. But that seems unlikely.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> I agree. I never read Gawker or any of its sites, they were all garbage. Well, no, some of the sites under the Gawker umbrella were quite excellent. That's one more thing to lay at the feet of Nick Denton; his irresponsible behavior is going to take down some pretty good journalism along with the cesspool that was Gawker proper.

ambulancechaser 10y ago

I don't believe that this case set any new precedent.

jshevek 10y ago
I think they may have meant 'precedent' in some colloquially sense of the word, not the legal definition. Maybe "Successful action which encourages others to attempt the same" or something like that.

chatmasta 10y ago

We have limits on speech when it comes to private information. Should "free speech" allow gawker to publish a private citizen's sex tape? There is no "in the public interest" argument to apply here.

olliej 10y ago
Ues there is - hogan is a public figure who is involved in politics and has repeatedly announced his conservative/be faithful/young-people-have-loose-morals bullshit. Hence cheating on his wife was news, the public should have been informed, and unlike that fappening this wasnt stolen.
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you think reporting that Hogan was cheating is what Gawker was sued for. Plenty of people have done that, with no repercussions.
- andromeduck 10y ago
  You can do that without releasing the tape
- littletimmy 10y ago
  Cheating on his wife may have been news (I disagree, but just for the sake of argument let's say that's true). The gratuitous porn video was in every way NOT news. A news organization should not have the right to publish a sex tape to establish dubious morality. It also should not have the right to publish Hogan taking a straining shit if he appeared previously in a hemorrhoid commercial. There are standards in civilized society.

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago

"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on media we should all be applauding. Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what the hand-wringing about is about.

smt88 10y ago
> Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video. What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? That was a private video, probably made illegally. Journalism is about making private things public when it suits the public. An individual (who is directly impacted by the revelations) should not be able to use the courts to crush that journalism. Gawker has been repugnant and they shouldn't have done what they did to Hogan, but there could still be a bad precedent here.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  The thoughts of a politician running for office ARE in the public interest because that person is campaigning to be elected to be a decision maker in the country. Video of people having sex may be something the public is interested in, but it is not in the public interest. It's none of the public's business and the public should find more interesting things to be interested in.
  - smt88 10y ago
    Hogan has considered running for office multiple times, including saying he wants to be Trump's running mate[1]. Why should we distinguish between a powerful, famous businessman and actor and a politician? Anyone powerful and famous should be a public figure on the same footing. 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/29/hulk-hogan-i-want-be-trumps-running-mate-vice-pres/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/29/hulk-hogan-i...

cloakandswagger 10y ago

I only wish people were as ardently Constitutionalist when it came to other amendments (e.g., the one after free speech). I for one am overjoyed with this news and have no concern whatsoever that it will be the death knell of legitimate journalism. Voyeuristic muck like Gawker makes society ugly.

partiallypro 10y ago

I'm a free speech absolutist, but what precedent does this set that's new? The person that leaked the "Fappening" items is also being prosecuted, why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture.

jshevek 10y ago
Yes, exactly. After Thiel was revealed as the financier, some in the media saw an opportunity to re-caste the narrative in a way that they knew would appeal to our hatred of the rich and our fear for their abuse of power. The story became all about Thiel the alleged bully, the abuser of power, his petty grudge, etc etc. It was effective manipulation, just look at the comments here from those who think this 'sets a bad precedent'. Never mind that Thiel's side was right and Gawker was wrong. Never mind that the mechanism employed to achieve justice here is basically the same mechanism that the ACLU uses.
- deong 10y ago
  Firstly, the ACLU is open about it. There's no way to know, but my guess is that had Thiel stepped up in public a few years ago and said, "Gawker is a terrible gossip rag that needs to be taught a lesson -- contact me if they've wronged you too, and I'll help you mount a case", people would be less angry at him. People don't like the idea that a shadowy cabal can run things behind the scenes without any public scrutiny. Secondly, the ACLU does not generally appear vindictive. The ACLU looks to fund cases with a motive that people generally understand to be making things better for American society. Thiel may claim that removing Gawker from the face of the earth is a public service, but given the obvious history, that seems laughable. He appears vindictive, not altruistic.
  - partiallypro 10y ago
    The ACLU is only public about it because part of their mission is to raise awareness. They have PR blitzes to publicize new cases they are taking on.
10y ago

Fenntrek 10y ago

Why? It went to Court and went through the due process, that process hasn't prior to this case and it wont after this case and the constitution remains the same. If you publish, you deal with the repercussions, whether positive or negative. The only thing I dislike is that it takes a billionaire to help a millionaire financially to give the case a fair chance while the less wealthy are powerless and without aid to even start a similar battle.

lujim 10y ago

Gawker can say or publish whatever they want and the Feds won't come throw them behind bars, but free speech doesn't make someone immune to ALL repercussions. You are free to go tell your boss whatever you want, but it might impact you financially. You are also free to spread rumors about whoever you want but you might get dragged into civil court and fined if you unjustly harm that person.

will_brown 10y ago

>It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. There is a difference between protecting a group from being silenced by the Government and holding a private company liable when they release a sex tape under the pretense of freedom of speech/freedom of the press. >I believe this will have a chilling effect on the media in the US. As well it should...its not exactly a slippery slope: sex tapes don't become newsworthy just because the subject is a celebrity.

smt88 10y ago
> sex tapes don't become newsworthy just because the subject is a celebrity What if the sex might have been non-consensual (see: Dominique Strauss-Kahn)? What if the sex is between a public official and his employee (see: Bill Clinton)? What if the sex is illegal (see: Eliot Spitzer)? The fact is that sex can be of interest to the public, which means video of that sex can also be of interest to the public.
- rwz 10y ago
  In all mentioned cases the sex becomes sexual assault, which is a felony. It's very different from adult people consensually enjoying themselves.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    Sorry? Engaging a prostitute is sexual assault? How exactly is it "very different from adult people consensually enjoying themselves"?
- danielweber 10y ago
  Do let us know when that situation happens.
  - smt88 10y ago
    http://gawker.com/5741535/police-find-photographs-of-berlusconis-bunga-bunga-parties http://gawker.com/5741535/police-find-photographs-of-berlusc... (An irony that the first site that came up was Gawker)

xwowsersx 10y ago

You're making a common mistake here about free speech. Free speech in the First Amendment is a restriction on the government, not individuals. The reason we treasure it so much is because of the history of government's in Europe and elsewhere restricting the speech of individuals. Having experienced the perils of government censorship themselves, the Framers put this into the Constitution. Free speech has never meant "You have a right to say anything you want without consequences".

broahmed 10y ago

I'd be more concerned about the precedent it set if Gawker had won. The publishing of secrets derived from an invasion of privacy is defensible by "free speech" if something of great moral/ethical imperative is gained. Publishing papers that reveal years of lying and misleading the American public about the true extent of the US government's involvement in Vietnam and surrounding countries, aka the Pentagon Papers? Defensible. Publishing a videotape without consent of someone having sex? Gawker can scream "free speech" till they're blue in the face; I think your average person is going to recognize a blatant violation of privacy occurred with little gained. Look, I get it: free speech = awesome. But I don't think your average person sees free speech as an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

soheil 10y ago

It'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.

protomyth 10y ago

> Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. That you have to have serious cash to hold a news site accountable? We are not talking about a charity, Gawker is a multi-million dollar business. I am glad Thiel did this and I hope it has a chilling effect on the media in the US. They weren't printing news, they were going for titillation that just happened embarrass someone they didn't like. Corruption in political figures, fine, but not this crud.

CM30 10y ago

How about the opposite precedent? The idea that if your adversaries don't have money, you can seemingly publish whatever you like (legality and morality be damned) knowing they can't afford to sue you/defeat your large legal team? The only thing stopping Gawker being crushed before was the fact it had a multi million dollar corporation behind it, and was happy to flat out ignore any complaints they didn't like. Now someone with more money comes along, they get smashed to a pulp and everything somehow changes.

internaut 10y ago
Well put. I think a silent majority of journalists are thinking this while their less introspective colleagues reduce the situation to David vs Goliath. I'm with David Friedman on this. http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/05/ot51-alien-vs-threadator/#comment-369046 http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/05/ot51-alien-vs-threadato... Making tort claims marketable solves multiple problems: 1. The tort victim who can’t afford a lawyer. He may be able to get a law firm to take the case for a share of the award, but … 2. How does he know which law firm will do a good job, which do a bad job, which sell him out for some covert payment? If he can sell his claim, all he needs to know is which firm offers him the highest price. I know some liberals think libertarians are gaga for markets but it seems like this would serve their egalitarian goals as well. Personally I had never considered the potential for the first point but now it seems obvious.

karmacondon 10y ago

There will be no ceiling effect because real journalists stay within the bounds of the law. Equating a self proclaimed gossip website with real reporting is disingenuous and insulting to journalists. If the National Enquirer broke the law and was sued, do you really think it would affect decision making at the NYT or Washington Post?

Lawtonfogle 10y ago

If you care about free speech as it relates to porn, then this is nothing compared to some of the other limits put on free speech. Consider the Australian guy who was convicted for having sexualized drawings of the Simpsons. Edit: grrrrr autocorrect

untog 10y ago

For those who don't see anything wrong with this because Gawker is Gawker, I present to you a very similar case involving Mother Jones: http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-sued-us-we-won-we-still-have-big-legal-bills-pay http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-sued... The story they reported was 100% correct, but they were still sued by the billionaire political donor that was the subject of the story. The case was eventually thrown out of court, yet it still cost Mother Jones $2.5m to defend themselves. That was enough to drive them to the brink of bankruptcy.

mathattack 10y ago

It's precedent on both sides. On the one hand it's "A rich billionaire with pockets deeper than a media organization, funding a lawsuit" On the other hand it's "A media organization that posts what they want because it's too costly to sue them" Perhaps the precedent is "Don't try to make a quick buck posting sex tapes without permission just because you don't think someone can afford to come after you"? It's not as black and white as most free speech and freedom of the press issues.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

They already have, in many cases. The Aryan Nations was shut down due to third parties funding a (legitimate) lawsuit. https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan-v-aryan-nations https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... Think tanks have been subpoenaed over AGW skepticism: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-into-silence-on-global-warming https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenae... Media organizations have been prevented from reporting on Hillary Clinton during a political campaign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC This sort of thing has been common practice for a long time. The only real difference is that this time the media sees the victim as being part of their tribe and the attacker being part of an opposing tribe.