9 ms·

"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 rath

"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...
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      And how does video of Hogan nailing someone let you know how he would perform as a public official?
      - smt88 10y ago
        Many people believe that violating your marriage vows is an indicator that you wouldn't be a trustworthy public official.
- spriggan3 10y ago
  > 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. And Romney had the right to sue.He didn't what you're point ?
- zeveb 10y ago
  > What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? For the record, he didn't say anything horrible about poor people. What he said was: > There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. … My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not. He simply stated the facts: there's nothing he can do to win over a certain fraction of the electorate without compromising his principles; thus there's no point focusing on it; thus he needs to spend his time as a candidate focusing on those who he can win over without compromising his principles.
  - plandis 10y ago
    He did say bad stuff about poor people though. He incorrectly assumed that 47% of the US population will never take personal responsibility. When you're taped stating that you are not even going to try to help 47% of the population because of a stereotype I think that people have a valid point to be upset about.
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      >He incorrectly assumed that 47% of the US population will never take personal responsibility. How do you know that he was incorrect?
- dfraser992 10y ago
  15 years ago, I met a videographer who told me a story about a job he was involved in in filming some internal meeting of the Libertarian Party in America. I realize it's hearsay, and I have no way to verify my statement, but I also have no reason to disbelieve him, given what I know of of human nature and his character in general (as much as I knew him). Basically, his story was the upper leadership were caught on tape making comments about how the rank and file of Libertarians were essentially manipulated fools to prevent them from disrupting the power of the Republican Party. That is the gist of his story, as best I can remember. I have some sympathy for libertarian principles, and conservative ones, and liberal ones, so I am not an ideologue. This incident is entirely possible, given what I understand of human nature and how society/politics actually operates. I agree with Gawker being repugnant etc; the story seems essentially salacious and its fundamental purpose was to drive website traffic. Are sex scandals that important, in the big picture? Only when they involve national security or other such public interest issues - e.g. General David Petraeus and his carelessness. Where is the line where exposing hypocrisy is in the public interest versus the essential rights of a person?
guelo 10y ago
The real precedent is obviously "don't piss of billionaires because they have many ways they can crush you".
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  But that's always been a precedent.
- fooster 10y ago
  That isn't obvious to me at least. It was morally, ethically and legally wrong to publish that video. Now they pay the price.
  - AlexandrB 10y ago
    If they hadn't published the Hogan video, the lawyers funded by Thiel would have found someone else who's been wronged by Gawker and the outcome would be similar. The moral really is don't anger the rich and powerful.
    - ivl 10y ago
      I'm not so sure. Maybe "don't be a trash publication that skirts the law, and then defies orders to take things down when told by a judge".
    - jshevek 10y ago
      I don't see that. There seems to be a conspiracy theory floating around that Thiel was destined to destroy Gawker even if Gawker did nothing illegal, because "money and lawsuits". I don't buy it. Courts routinely throw out frivolous suits, sometimes they even punish the people who start them. Gawker lost because Gawker was wrong.
    - valarauca1 10y ago
      And if they weren't in violation of the law they wouldn't have to pay and had their court fees refunded by their counter suit. Yes Thiel has shakey ethics. Gawker violated the law AND ethics. Neither side was good in this case. If you think court cases are too expensive PERIOD... Then start caring about Tort Reform.
valarauca1 10y ago
Agreed. I don't understand the media's response. Gawker clearly violated the law. The headline they posted the Hulk Hogan video under admitted they were violating the law (or at least going against the council of their attorneys). The only way this case is dangerous is if people start issuing bonds which are just a collection of partial settlements of still undecided lawsuits, funded by the purchase of said bond. This doesn't exist (as no banks are backing/issuing these bonds). Its just media FUD due to them being held accountable for violating personal privacy laws. If you are concerned the case cost to much here's a new issue for you to care about TORT REFORM.
FireBeyond 10y ago
Yes, and Gawker had purchased insurance to deal with the ramifications of their actions. Bollea's lawyers, as funded by Thiel, then decided to specifically drop the claim that would allow the damages payout to have been made from insurance. That's fairly vindictive. Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtless on a gay cruise, I think it's fairly safe the rest of the world didn't need Valleywag to tell them of your homosexuality. I think a lot of what Gawker has done is repugnant. But this is analogous to me making a bad mistake (even breaking the law) and causing a lot of damage in a car accident. In the civil trials that follow, I'm sued for damages, distress, medical bills, and the like. All well and good, as I should be. And I have insurance. As I should have. Except you don't like me, because I previously attacked you verbally. So you say "Actually, your Honor, we're dropping all claims that are proximate to the accident itself, and only suing for everything that happened after the fact." which ever-so-conveniently takes my insurance off the hook for its ability to pay. And you only do this -after- being assured you'll win, so no-one can question your real motivation (apparently, there was all this damage and distress you suffered, and you want recompense. Except now you don't, because you're removing the only realistic mechanism for you to obtain any recompense). I don't think "secret motivations" and secret financiers should be a part of an open court system (and indeed, secretly financing lawsuits used to be and in most places is still illegal because it raises more ethical and moral questions than it answers).
- sofaofthedamned 10y ago
  Just out of interest - insurance may not have saved them. I have liability insurance etc but it's capped at £2 million. I doubt any corporate insurance plan for Gawker would be uncapped, so they may well have still gone under.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Also a good point, true. But it does put the lie to their claim, under oath, in court, that there was emotional damage suffered and that compensation was sought.
olliej 10y ago
It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people). So... Reporting on that seems like actual information that should be public? Compare to the pamela anderson tape, which was with her husband, was literally /stolen from their home/, and was sold for profit. Judge ruled that there wasnt anythig they could do. Meanwhile, Thiel who was using hogan as a proxy has literally just demonstrated that you cant afford to post opinion pieces about tech billionaires and their occassionally delusional comments about how people should behave.
- splouk 10y ago
  Which opinion piece are you referring to? I thought that they outed him as gay?
- wheaties 10y ago
  Me knowing who someone screws is absolutely not in the public interest. A video of someone screwing that they don't want public and more specifically, didn't consent to film is also not in the public interest. Privacy is a right.
- Natsu 10y ago
  Do you have a source on that? I understood that the film was stolen in addition to being taken without the knowledge or consent of Hogan. FWIW, unless there's some real public interest beyond the prurient, I don't see why people should be able to publish anyone's private sex tapes without their consent. I would tend to say that the right to privacy should win in such cases.
- ht85 10y ago
  Reporting on it isn't what got them taken down. Posting the video got them in trouble (for obvious reasons), and refusing to take it down played a big role in the final sentence (aka death).
- throw10010110 10y ago
  I'm posting this on a throwaway account for obvious reasons, so this comment is showing up as dead. Would someone mind vouching it? Thanks! It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people). This fetish is called wifesharing. It's not cheating, and it's not immoral. You may not personally like the idea, but calling someone's fetish immoral when all parties consent to the act is strange. Saying that it's in the public interest to know is offensive. There are many sources that say this was a consensual act. I won't post these sordid articles here, but they are very easy to find. This is equivalent to someone being gay, and someone else saying that it's in the public interest for their immoral acts to be made public.
SilasX 10y ago
I don't sympathize, but it does reek of "jackpot justice". That's a horrible thing to do, but is it so horrible as to warrant an effective "death penalty" for any company that does it once? And what about all the other people that were the victims of such an invasion of privacy, but didn't get a reward big enough to retire on thirty times over? The core problem is that the "justice" system is so capricious that only a few victims get made whole, and when they do, it's bizarrely over the top.
- hodgesrm 10y ago
  The legal system fundamentally works like that. It's the "shoot one to encourage the others" approach. Not everyone gets made whole but the sort of behavior exhibited by Gawker will likely be a lot rarer in the future.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    The literal death penalty also discourages "les autres", but most people also recognize it as woefully excessive for most crimes (if not all), and would recognize the system as fundamentally broken if that system also failed to punish 99% of murderers at all, as the civil justice system fails to punish 99+% of invasions of privacy.
plandis 10y ago
Everything you're saying is entirely true however the normal mechanisms that would have protected Gawker were skirted here. They structured lawsuits perfectly so that insurance never kicked in. Should the company be penalized? Most definitely. Was it worth shutting an otherwise okay running business? Questionably.
dsabanin 10y ago
A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. For example, it's illegal to film what's happening inside a slaughterhouse[1]. Some people are getting into trouble for filming cops[2]. I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo. One can easily imagine a next generation of laws that will make it illegal to publish leaked documents, like those that Snowden or Wikileaks released. [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaughterhouse/ http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaug... [2] http://www.copblock.org/1281/filmingpolice/ http://www.copblock.org/1281/filmingpolice/
- golemotron 10y ago
  I expect [1] to be overturned. Courts have pushed back against [2] every time it comes up.
- misnome 10y ago
  > I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo. Isn't the alternative that every journalistic publication is above the law? If it were/is a free speech issue, then presumably it will be overturned on appeal?
- 1024core 10y ago
  > A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spycams in public bathrooms?
  - 10y ago
qq66 10y ago
The problem is that a sufficiently wealthy adversary can fund a case with little to no merit and the worst case outcome is having to pay the attorney's fees of the defendant. In the best case you can just bleed your opponent dry. This happened to Mother Jones.
- tinduck 10y ago
  The Mother Jones case is completely different. Florida has anti-SLAPP laws, Idaho doesn't. Maybe Florida anti-SLAPP laws aren't good enough, I don't know. But it's a tough balance. Bollea's case was determine by a judge to have enough merit to take to court. Bollea will probably lose on appeal. But he definitely has the right to his day in court.
gizmo 10y ago
Bollea couldn't win this on his own. He's a millionaire, but that's not enough when you're up against a 100 million dollar new media company. He would be forced to settle for a pittance. Thiel in contrast could afford to refuse all settlement offers and to take it all the way to a jury judgement. It's a messed up justice system, but in this case it worked out alright.
travmatt 10y ago
This is what confused me so much about the outrage Gawker was trying to incite - didn't they explicitly ignore a court order so they could keep making money on a pornographic video published without the consent of those in it? It was my impression that Nick Denton told the court to fuck itself by ignoring the court order, and then doubled down in his deposition.
wrsh07 10y ago
... "merely" went looking for reasons to sue Gawker and happened to find a big one. He has funded multiple suits against Gawker. He wasn't giving a friend some money, he was explicitly searching out cases to take down a media company. That's a precedent.

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...
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    And how does video of Hogan nailing someone let you know how he would perform as a public official?
    - smt88 10y ago
      Many people believe that violating your marriage vows is an indicator that you wouldn't be a trustworthy public official.
spriggan3 10y ago
> 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. And Romney had the right to sue.He didn't what you're point ?
zeveb 10y ago
> What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? For the record, he didn't say anything horrible about poor people. What he said was: > There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. … My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not. He simply stated the facts: there's nothing he can do to win over a certain fraction of the electorate without compromising his principles; thus there's no point focusing on it; thus he needs to spend his time as a candidate focusing on those who he can win over without compromising his principles.
- plandis 10y ago
  He did say bad stuff about poor people though. He incorrectly assumed that 47% of the US population will never take personal responsibility. When you're taped stating that you are not even going to try to help 47% of the population because of a stereotype I think that people have a valid point to be upset about.
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    >He incorrectly assumed that 47% of the US population will never take personal responsibility. How do you know that he was incorrect?
dfraser992 10y ago
15 years ago, I met a videographer who told me a story about a job he was involved in in filming some internal meeting of the Libertarian Party in America. I realize it's hearsay, and I have no way to verify my statement, but I also have no reason to disbelieve him, given what I know of of human nature and his character in general (as much as I knew him). Basically, his story was the upper leadership were caught on tape making comments about how the rank and file of Libertarians were essentially manipulated fools to prevent them from disrupting the power of the Republican Party. That is the gist of his story, as best I can remember. I have some sympathy for libertarian principles, and conservative ones, and liberal ones, so I am not an ideologue. This incident is entirely possible, given what I understand of human nature and how society/politics actually operates. I agree with Gawker being repugnant etc; the story seems essentially salacious and its fundamental purpose was to drive website traffic. Are sex scandals that important, in the big picture? Only when they involve national security or other such public interest issues - e.g. General David Petraeus and his carelessness. Where is the line where exposing hypocrisy is in the public interest versus the essential rights of a person?

guelo 10y ago

The real precedent is obviously "don't piss of billionaires because they have many ways they can crush you".

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
But that's always been a precedent.
fooster 10y ago
That isn't obvious to me at least. It was morally, ethically and legally wrong to publish that video. Now they pay the price.
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  If they hadn't published the Hogan video, the lawyers funded by Thiel would have found someone else who's been wronged by Gawker and the outcome would be similar. The moral really is don't anger the rich and powerful.
  - ivl 10y ago
    I'm not so sure. Maybe "don't be a trash publication that skirts the law, and then defies orders to take things down when told by a judge".
  - jshevek 10y ago
    I don't see that. There seems to be a conspiracy theory floating around that Thiel was destined to destroy Gawker even if Gawker did nothing illegal, because "money and lawsuits". I don't buy it. Courts routinely throw out frivolous suits, sometimes they even punish the people who start them. Gawker lost because Gawker was wrong.
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    And if they weren't in violation of the law they wouldn't have to pay and had their court fees refunded by their counter suit. Yes Thiel has shakey ethics. Gawker violated the law AND ethics. Neither side was good in this case. If you think court cases are too expensive PERIOD... Then start caring about Tort Reform.

valarauca1 10y ago

Agreed. I don't understand the media's response. Gawker clearly violated the law. The headline they posted the Hulk Hogan video under admitted they were violating the law (or at least going against the council of their attorneys). The only way this case is dangerous is if people start issuing bonds which are just a collection of partial settlements of still undecided lawsuits, funded by the purchase of said bond. This doesn't exist (as no banks are backing/issuing these bonds). Its just media FUD due to them being held accountable for violating personal privacy laws. If you are concerned the case cost to much here's a new issue for you to care about TORT REFORM.

FireBeyond 10y ago

Yes, and Gawker had purchased insurance to deal with the ramifications of their actions. Bollea's lawyers, as funded by Thiel, then decided to specifically drop the claim that would allow the damages payout to have been made from insurance. That's fairly vindictive. Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtless on a gay cruise, I think it's fairly safe the rest of the world didn't need Valleywag to tell them of your homosexuality. I think a lot of what Gawker has done is repugnant. But this is analogous to me making a bad mistake (even breaking the law) and causing a lot of damage in a car accident. In the civil trials that follow, I'm sued for damages, distress, medical bills, and the like. All well and good, as I should be. And I have insurance. As I should have. Except you don't like me, because I previously attacked you verbally. So you say "Actually, your Honor, we're dropping all claims that are proximate to the accident itself, and only suing for everything that happened after the fact." which ever-so-conveniently takes my insurance off the hook for its ability to pay. And you only do this -after- being assured you'll win, so no-one can question your real motivation (apparently, there was all this damage and distress you suffered, and you want recompense. Except now you don't, because you're removing the only realistic mechanism for you to obtain any recompense). I don't think "secret motivations" and secret financiers should be a part of an open court system (and indeed, secretly financing lawsuits used to be and in most places is still illegal because it raises more ethical and moral questions than it answers).

sofaofthedamned 10y ago
Just out of interest - insurance may not have saved them. I have liability insurance etc but it's capped at £2 million. I doubt any corporate insurance plan for Gawker would be uncapped, so they may well have still gone under.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Also a good point, true. But it does put the lie to their claim, under oath, in court, that there was emotional damage suffered and that compensation was sought.

olliej 10y ago

It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people). So... Reporting on that seems like actual information that should be public? Compare to the pamela anderson tape, which was with her husband, was literally /stolen from their home/, and was sold for profit. Judge ruled that there wasnt anythig they could do. Meanwhile, Thiel who was using hogan as a proxy has literally just demonstrated that you cant afford to post opinion pieces about tech billionaires and their occassionally delusional comments about how people should behave.

splouk 10y ago
Which opinion piece are you referring to? I thought that they outed him as gay?
wheaties 10y ago
Me knowing who someone screws is absolutely not in the public interest. A video of someone screwing that they don't want public and more specifically, didn't consent to film is also not in the public interest. Privacy is a right.
Natsu 10y ago
Do you have a source on that? I understood that the film was stolen in addition to being taken without the knowledge or consent of Hogan. FWIW, unless there's some real public interest beyond the prurient, I don't see why people should be able to publish anyone's private sex tapes without their consent. I would tend to say that the right to privacy should win in such cases.
ht85 10y ago
Reporting on it isn't what got them taken down. Posting the video got them in trouble (for obvious reasons), and refusing to take it down played a big role in the final sentence (aka death).
throw10010110 10y ago
I'm posting this on a throwaway account for obvious reasons, so this comment is showing up as dead. Would someone mind vouching it? Thanks! It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people). This fetish is called wifesharing. It's not cheating, and it's not immoral. You may not personally like the idea, but calling someone's fetish immoral when all parties consent to the act is strange. Saying that it's in the public interest to know is offensive. There are many sources that say this was a consensual act. I won't post these sordid articles here, but they are very easy to find. This is equivalent to someone being gay, and someone else saying that it's in the public interest for their immoral acts to be made public.

SilasX 10y ago

I don't sympathize, but it does reek of "jackpot justice". That's a horrible thing to do, but is it so horrible as to warrant an effective "death penalty" for any company that does it once? And what about all the other people that were the victims of such an invasion of privacy, but didn't get a reward big enough to retire on thirty times over? The core problem is that the "justice" system is so capricious that only a few victims get made whole, and when they do, it's bizarrely over the top.

hodgesrm 10y ago
The legal system fundamentally works like that. It's the "shoot one to encourage the others" approach. Not everyone gets made whole but the sort of behavior exhibited by Gawker will likely be a lot rarer in the future.
- SilasX 10y ago
  The literal death penalty also discourages "les autres", but most people also recognize it as woefully excessive for most crimes (if not all), and would recognize the system as fundamentally broken if that system also failed to punish 99% of murderers at all, as the civil justice system fails to punish 99+% of invasions of privacy.

plandis 10y ago

Everything you're saying is entirely true however the normal mechanisms that would have protected Gawker were skirted here. They structured lawsuits perfectly so that insurance never kicked in. Should the company be penalized? Most definitely. Was it worth shutting an otherwise okay running business? Questionably.

dsabanin 10y ago

A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. For example, it's illegal to film what's happening inside a slaughterhouse[1]. Some people are getting into trouble for filming cops[2]. I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo. One can easily imagine a next generation of laws that will make it illegal to publish leaked documents, like those that Snowden or Wikileaks released. [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaughterhouse/ http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaug... [2] http://www.copblock.org/1281/filmingpolice/ http://www.copblock.org/1281/filmingpolice/

golemotron 10y ago
I expect [1] to be overturned. Courts have pushed back against [2] every time it comes up.
misnome 10y ago
> I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo. Isn't the alternative that every journalistic publication is above the law? If it were/is a free speech issue, then presumably it will be overturned on appeal?
1024core 10y ago
> A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spycams in public bathrooms?
- 10y ago

qq66 10y ago

The problem is that a sufficiently wealthy adversary can fund a case with little to no merit and the worst case outcome is having to pay the attorney's fees of the defendant. In the best case you can just bleed your opponent dry. This happened to Mother Jones.

tinduck 10y ago
The Mother Jones case is completely different. Florida has anti-SLAPP laws, Idaho doesn't. Maybe Florida anti-SLAPP laws aren't good enough, I don't know. But it's a tough balance. Bollea's case was determine by a judge to have enough merit to take to court. Bollea will probably lose on appeal. But he definitely has the right to his day in court.

gizmo 10y ago

Bollea couldn't win this on his own. He's a millionaire, but that's not enough when you're up against a 100 million dollar new media company. He would be forced to settle for a pittance. Thiel in contrast could afford to refuse all settlement offers and to take it all the way to a jury judgement. It's a messed up justice system, but in this case it worked out alright.

travmatt 10y ago

This is what confused me so much about the outrage Gawker was trying to incite - didn't they explicitly ignore a court order so they could keep making money on a pornographic video published without the consent of those in it? It was my impression that Nick Denton told the court to fuck itself by ignoring the court order, and then doubled down in his deposition.

wrsh07 10y ago

... "merely" went looking for reasons to sue Gawker and happened to find a big one. He has funded multiple suits against Gawker. He wasn't giving a friend some money, he was explicitly searching out cases to take down a media company. That's a precedent.