4 ms·

Most of the commentary on this case has revolved around whether it is just for Peter Thiel to fund the litigation, but can we just pause and say that $140 milli

Most of the commentary on this case has revolved around whether it is just for Peter Thiel to fund the litigation, but can we just pause and say that $140 million for invasion of privacy is kind of out of control?

bogomipz 10y ago
Is it? Please tell us what's the going rate for privacy then since you seem to know that that figure is not correct. What if it were you privacy? How much would it be?
- lmm 10y ago
  $3 million in the general hypothetical. In the case of a single sex tape, probably more like $750k.
  - Retra 10y ago
    You can't safely put a price on rights at a level that wealthy organizations can easily afford.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      Exactly, but I think the commenter was less interested in actual discussion and more interested in being snarky. Ironic in a discussion about the demise of Gawker Media.
      - lmm 10y ago
        Not at all. Those were sincere numbers for what kind of damages I think would be reasonable.
- aetherson 10y ago
  Dude, you can publish all the sex tapes of me that you want for, say, $10M. Probably a lot less if you're a decent negotiator.
jblow 10y ago
I think their bald contempt for the legal process had a lot to do with it: http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
internaut 10y ago
If it was just about the reduction in Terry's expected future earnings, then sure. But Gawker also disobeyed a court order. Then they didn't take the proceedings seriously. They even at one point claimed Gawker had the moral high ground for freedom of speech because Denton's mom fled the Nazis. One of the editors made a stupid joke about only infant child porn being taboo to host at Gawker's website. All of those things and more I don't have the time to look up antagonized the judge. It's safe to say the result exceeded even Thiel's expectations. There are cases where people go to prison for contempt of court for less than this. Nick Denton and/or his staff could have faced up to a year in prison. "A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial." There's like 3 counts of contempt of court that could have been brought against Gawker. Instead of drawing it out and turning Denton into a martyr the judge decided to hammer them financially.
- michaelt 10y ago
  Even when I add up damage to Hogan, disobeying the court order, and not taking proceedings seriously I'm still having trouble making it to $140 million. Had the case not involved anyone with millions of dollars of assets, a tasteless joke or two would probably have only merited a few nights in the cells - if that. I don't see that you could value a week in jail at much more than $70,000; if someone offered me that much money to spend a week in jail I'd be happy to accept. And if instead of having his sex tape published, Hogan had been killed by a gas tank fire in a car the manufacturers knew to be faulty, his family could have expected around $8 million [1]. I just can't understand how the $140 million judgement was arrived at. Unless the logic was "well, gawker won't reoffend if they don't exist, and they are kinda assholes so they've got it coming" and to be fair I can see how the judge might think that but I didn't realise it was an established legal principle. [1] http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/victimcompensation.html http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/v...
  - internaut 10y ago
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
Here's a snippet of testimony, under oath, from Gawker's chief editor. https://youtu.be/Ub80kHh5WDI?t=73 https://youtu.be/Ub80kHh5WDI?t=73 Let the enormity of what he said, under oath in front of a judge and jury, sink in for a moment. The New York Times also provides a transcript and analysis here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/business/media/gawker-editors-testimony-stuns-courtroom-in-hulk-hogan-trial.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/business/media/gawker-edit... Let's also take a look at an article posted by Gawker themselves regarding the trial. The title speaks for itself: "A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post. We Won't." http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga... Gawker made no effort whatsoever to disguise the fact they were scoundrels, so much so that the jury intentionally awarded more damages than the plaintiff asked for and the judge didn't stop them. That takes some doing. So, "Out of control"? No, not really. I'd say that Gawker worked hard to earn it.
- biztos 10y ago
  Wow. I haven't been following this very closely, and I watched that video expecting to hear something incendiary about the tabloid press... talk about over-delivering! Attorney: "Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?" A.J. Daulerio of Gawker: "If they were a child." Attorney: "Under what age?" Daulerio: "Four." Clear as day. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't watched the video. And the look on this Daulerio character's face suggests he's saying it out of contempt for the whole process, but considering the venue one ought to take him at his word.

bogomipz 10y ago

Is it? Please tell us what's the going rate for privacy then since you seem to know that that figure is not correct. What if it were you privacy? How much would it be?

lmm 10y ago
$3 million in the general hypothetical. In the case of a single sex tape, probably more like $750k.
- Retra 10y ago
  You can't safely put a price on rights at a level that wealthy organizations can easily afford.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    Exactly, but I think the commenter was less interested in actual discussion and more interested in being snarky. Ironic in a discussion about the demise of Gawker Media.
    - lmm 10y ago
      Not at all. Those were sincere numbers for what kind of damages I think would be reasonable.
aetherson 10y ago
Dude, you can publish all the sex tapes of me that you want for, say, $10M. Probably a lot less if you're a decent negotiator.

jblow 10y ago

I think their bald contempt for the legal process had a lot to do with it: http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

internaut 10y ago

If it was just about the reduction in Terry's expected future earnings, then sure. But Gawker also disobeyed a court order. Then they didn't take the proceedings seriously. They even at one point claimed Gawker had the moral high ground for freedom of speech because Denton's mom fled the Nazis. One of the editors made a stupid joke about only infant child porn being taboo to host at Gawker's website. All of those things and more I don't have the time to look up antagonized the judge. It's safe to say the result exceeded even Thiel's expectations. There are cases where people go to prison for contempt of court for less than this. Nick Denton and/or his staff could have faced up to a year in prison. "A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial." There's like 3 counts of contempt of court that could have been brought against Gawker. Instead of drawing it out and turning Denton into a martyr the judge decided to hammer them financially.

michaelt 10y ago
Even when I add up damage to Hogan, disobeying the court order, and not taking proceedings seriously I'm still having trouble making it to $140 million. Had the case not involved anyone with millions of dollars of assets, a tasteless joke or two would probably have only merited a few nights in the cells - if that. I don't see that you could value a week in jail at much more than $70,000; if someone offered me that much money to spend a week in jail I'd be happy to accept. And if instead of having his sex tape published, Hogan had been killed by a gas tank fire in a car the manufacturers knew to be faulty, his family could have expected around $8 million [1]. I just can't understand how the $140 million judgement was arrived at. Unless the logic was "well, gawker won't reoffend if they don't exist, and they are kinda assholes so they've got it coming" and to be fair I can see how the judge might think that but I didn't realise it was an established legal principle. [1] http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/victimcompensation.html http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/v...
- internaut 10y ago

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago

Here's a snippet of testimony, under oath, from Gawker's chief editor. https://youtu.be/Ub80kHh5WDI?t=73 https://youtu.be/Ub80kHh5WDI?t=73 Let the enormity of what he said, under oath in front of a judge and jury, sink in for a moment. The New York Times also provides a transcript and analysis here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/business/media/gawker-editors-testimony-stuns-courtroom-in-hulk-hogan-trial.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/business/media/gawker-edit... Let's also take a look at an article posted by Gawker themselves regarding the trial. The title speaks for itself: "A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post. We Won't." http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga... Gawker made no effort whatsoever to disguise the fact they were scoundrels, so much so that the jury intentionally awarded more damages than the plaintiff asked for and the judge didn't stop them. That takes some doing. So, "Out of control"? No, not really. I'd say that Gawker worked hard to earn it.

biztos 10y ago
Wow. I haven't been following this very closely, and I watched that video expecting to hear something incendiary about the tabloid press... talk about over-delivering! Attorney: "Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?" A.J. Daulerio of Gawker: "If they were a child." Attorney: "Under what age?" Daulerio: "Four." Clear as day. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't watched the video. And the look on this Daulerio character's face suggests he's saying it out of contempt for the whole process, but considering the venue one ought to take him at his word.