4 ms·

Well the hope is that the courts wouldn't rule against an actual journalist for doing his/her job in a lawsuit. I get the "slippery slope" argument but posting

Well the hope is that the courts wouldn't rule against an actual journalist for doing his/her job in a lawsuit. I get the "slippery slope" argument but posting a video of Hulk Hogan having sex (taken and posted without his consent) doesn't really qualify as journalism in any way and they really deserved to lose.

baldfat 10y ago
But they weren't the only ones and I don't think they were even the first ones to do so. (At work no way I am researching if I am right) I HATE GAWKER but it does seem strange that no one else was sued for this.
- scruple 10y ago
  They defied a court order to remove the tape.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court stayed the order: Gawker appealed the injunction, and Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued an immediate stay, which prevented the injunction from going into effect. Eight months later, the appeals court issued a scathing opinion that overturned Campbell’s order on the grounds that the video was newsworthy and Gawker's publication of it was protected by the First Amendment. Armed with the appeals court decision, Gawker went back to Campbell and asked her to dismiss the case, since the appeals court had just ruled that publishing the video was protected by the First Amendment. Campbell refused. http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-as-gawker-looks-to-appeal-004433 http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk...
untog 10y ago
The court doesn't even have to rule against the journalist for the legal costs to destroy a media organisation. By example, this exact thing happened to 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...
- tomp 10y ago
  That's fucked up. But it's the same problem everywhere in the US - not just media. Looks like the whole system need an overhaul.
  - webXL 10y ago
    Or just implement Loser Pays.
    - untog 10y ago
      Still wouldn't work. The loser wouldn't pay until the case is closed, and the company could go bankrupt in the meantime. Case in point, Gawker is widely expected to have their damages reduced on appeal, but it's already too late.
      - webXL 10y ago
        Legal fees are incredibly high right now partly because of frivolous lawsuits. Loser pays would drive down costs making bankruptcy a lot less likely. Besides, if this had been a pure 1st Amendment case, deep pockets like the ACLU could act like an insurance policy and pick up some of the day-to-day expenses, but the savings from not continuously defending yourself against frivolous lawsuits and getting reimbursed when you win would reduce the need for outside assistance.
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      How would you cap it? Could someone just spend ridiculous amounts of money to win a simple lawsuit and bankrupt the other party like that?
      - webXL 10y ago
        Nothing is capped. Because of the potential for paying twice as much to sue someone, only cases where the plaintiff has a good chance of winning make it to court, thereby putting less demand on legal services. Gawker was not bankrupted by their own legal fees, but by the damages they were ordered to pay out of their own pockets, so nothing is justifying a cap on what the loser must pay in terms of legal fees here. The main point of bringing up loser pays is to reduce the chance that a lawsuit with no chance of winning can bankrupt someone such as Mother Jones.

baldfat 10y ago

But they weren't the only ones and I don't think they were even the first ones to do so. (At work no way I am researching if I am right) I HATE GAWKER but it does seem strange that no one else was sued for this.

scruple 10y ago
They defied a court order to remove the tape.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court stayed the order: Gawker appealed the injunction, and Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued an immediate stay, which prevented the injunction from going into effect. Eight months later, the appeals court issued a scathing opinion that overturned Campbell’s order on the grounds that the video was newsworthy and Gawker's publication of it was protected by the First Amendment. Armed with the appeals court decision, Gawker went back to Campbell and asked her to dismiss the case, since the appeals court had just ruled that publishing the video was protected by the First Amendment. Campbell refused. http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-as-gawker-looks-to-appeal-004433 http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk...

untog 10y ago

The court doesn't even have to rule against the journalist for the legal costs to destroy a media organisation. By example, this exact thing happened to 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...

tomp 10y ago
That's fucked up. But it's the same problem everywhere in the US - not just media. Looks like the whole system need an overhaul.
- webXL 10y ago
  Or just implement Loser Pays.
  - untog 10y ago
    Still wouldn't work. The loser wouldn't pay until the case is closed, and the company could go bankrupt in the meantime. Case in point, Gawker is widely expected to have their damages reduced on appeal, but it's already too late.
    - webXL 10y ago
      Legal fees are incredibly high right now partly because of frivolous lawsuits. Loser pays would drive down costs making bankruptcy a lot less likely. Besides, if this had been a pure 1st Amendment case, deep pockets like the ACLU could act like an insurance policy and pick up some of the day-to-day expenses, but the savings from not continuously defending yourself against frivolous lawsuits and getting reimbursed when you win would reduce the need for outside assistance.
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    How would you cap it? Could someone just spend ridiculous amounts of money to win a simple lawsuit and bankrupt the other party like that?
    - webXL 10y ago
      Nothing is capped. Because of the potential for paying twice as much to sue someone, only cases where the plaintiff has a good chance of winning make it to court, thereby putting less demand on legal services. Gawker was not bankrupted by their own legal fees, but by the damages they were ordered to pay out of their own pockets, so nothing is justifying a cap on what the loser must pay in terms of legal fees here. The main point of bringing up loser pays is to reduce the chance that a lawsuit with no chance of winning can bankrupt someone such as Mother Jones.