6 ms·

False. Statements must be untrue to be either libel (written) or slander (verbal). The sex tape in question was real. I would not be so quick to celebrate. Thi

False. Statements must be untrue to be either libel (written) or slander (verbal). The sex tape in question was real. I would not be so quick to celebrate. This case has demonstrated that one or two very powerful, wealthy individuals (Peter Thiel et al) are able to destroy a successful business and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed. (It's worth noting that what Gawker originally wrote about Thiel was also apparently true.)

jlarocco 10y ago
You are definitely correct that Gawker's behavior wasn't technically illegal, but it was still a shitty thing to do, so I have zero sympathy for them. > I would not be so quick to celebrate. This case has demonstrated that one or two very powerful, wealthy individuals (Peter Thiel et al) are able to destroy a successful business and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed. That's always been true anyway. On the bright side, this time it was all over the internet, so that's some kind of progress at least. > (It's worth noting that what Gawker originally wrote about Thiel was also apparently true.) In both cases the info Gawker published was really nobody's business but that of the people involved. They published it as shameful attempts to get page views and (possibly) just to be mean. So good riddance.
- deong 10y ago
  You don't have to have sympathy for them to want this not to have happened. I don't like Gawker. If you want to argue the world is a better place without them, I'm not going to take the other side. But the way they've been destroyed is terrifying for anyone who wants to live in a free and informed society. The ends don't justify the means.
  - jlarocco 10y ago
    I agree with you, and my point was that the ultra-rich influencing the media isn't new, and is actually more visible in this case than it normally is.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
He was videotaped without his knowledge in a situation he had every reason to expect was private. If you then obtain that tape and publish it you're scum. The livelihoods of the employees were ruined by their idiot bosses who thought it would be a good idea to publish the video, not by the persons defending their privacy.
- troisx 10y ago
  Actually the judge wouldn't let Gawker present evidence from the FBI that both Hogan and the woman knew they were being taped. This means that not only is it possible that they lied on the stand, but with the huge amount required to appeal ($50 million), it's possible that they may get away with perjury.
  - dingo_bat 10y ago
    >Actually the judge wouldn't let Gawker present evidence from the FBI that both Hogan and the woman knew they were being taped. Why? That seems like an important piece of evidence.
    - btlsformerfan99 10y ago
      I used to listen to Bubba the Love Sponge--the guy who's house the tape was made in--back during that timeframe (before I knew what kind of a horrible person he apparently is). On an almost daily basis Bubba talked on air about he had cameras all over his house and taped everything. I find it very hard to believe that me--a random radio listener--knew that he taped everything in his house, but supposedly his best friend Hulk Hogan was oblivious.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      Cynically, because it was a small-town judge from Hogan's home town who resented NYC-based Gawker. This Politico article spells much of it out: 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...
  - 10y ago
spriggan3 10y ago
> and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed. Gawker ruined the livelihoods of its employees, not Hulk Hogan, not Thiel, with its scummy behavior.Hogan is the victim here, as much as Gawker's employees, they are victim of Gawker's policy which is profit at all cost. Well now Gawker is paying that cost.
- bruceb 10y ago
  If you are a journalist you know what Gawker is like, it obviously isn't a secret. They are not victims.

jlarocco 10y ago

You are definitely correct that Gawker's behavior wasn't technically illegal, but it was still a shitty thing to do, so I have zero sympathy for them. > I would not be so quick to celebrate. This case has demonstrated that one or two very powerful, wealthy individuals (Peter Thiel et al) are able to destroy a successful business and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed. That's always been true anyway. On the bright side, this time it was all over the internet, so that's some kind of progress at least. > (It's worth noting that what Gawker originally wrote about Thiel was also apparently true.) In both cases the info Gawker published was really nobody's business but that of the people involved. They published it as shameful attempts to get page views and (possibly) just to be mean. So good riddance.

deong 10y ago
You don't have to have sympathy for them to want this not to have happened. I don't like Gawker. If you want to argue the world is a better place without them, I'm not going to take the other side. But the way they've been destroyed is terrifying for anyone who wants to live in a free and informed society. The ends don't justify the means.
- jlarocco 10y ago
  I agree with you, and my point was that the ultra-rich influencing the media isn't new, and is actually more visible in this case than it normally is.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

He was videotaped without his knowledge in a situation he had every reason to expect was private. If you then obtain that tape and publish it you're scum. The livelihoods of the employees were ruined by their idiot bosses who thought it would be a good idea to publish the video, not by the persons defending their privacy.

troisx 10y ago
Actually the judge wouldn't let Gawker present evidence from the FBI that both Hogan and the woman knew they were being taped. This means that not only is it possible that they lied on the stand, but with the huge amount required to appeal ($50 million), it's possible that they may get away with perjury.
- dingo_bat 10y ago
  >Actually the judge wouldn't let Gawker present evidence from the FBI that both Hogan and the woman knew they were being taped. Why? That seems like an important piece of evidence.
  - btlsformerfan99 10y ago
    I used to listen to Bubba the Love Sponge--the guy who's house the tape was made in--back during that timeframe (before I knew what kind of a horrible person he apparently is). On an almost daily basis Bubba talked on air about he had cameras all over his house and taped everything. I find it very hard to believe that me--a random radio listener--knew that he taped everything in his house, but supposedly his best friend Hulk Hogan was oblivious.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    Cynically, because it was a small-town judge from Hogan's home town who resented NYC-based Gawker. This Politico article spells much of it out: 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...
- 10y ago

spriggan3 10y ago

> and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed. Gawker ruined the livelihoods of its employees, not Hulk Hogan, not Thiel, with its scummy behavior.Hogan is the victim here, as much as Gawker's employees, they are victim of Gawker's policy which is profit at all cost. Well now Gawker is paying that cost.

bruceb 10y ago
If you are a journalist you know what Gawker is like, it obviously isn't a secret. They are not victims.