4 ms·
The real precedent is obviously "don't piss of billionaires because they have many ways they can crush you".
by guelo 10y ago
The real precedent is obviously "don't piss of billionaires because they have many ways they can crush you".
- GunboatDiplomat 10y agoBut that's always been a precedent.
- fooster 10y agoThat 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 agoIf 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 agoI'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 agoI 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 agoAnd 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 agoThis has been true in America as long as the robber-baron class has existed.