4 ms·

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 proceeding

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
  A judge does have the power to bankrupt a corporation with fines. I've heard of a judge double sentencing in minutes based on the defendant's behavior: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/23/judge-allowed-to-double-laughing-defendants-sentence-court-rules http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/23/judge-allowed... The crime of criminal damage to Hogan (future income) would have dented Gawker's coffers but it is the refusal to obey a court order that did them in. The judge might have stayed her hand or advised the jury differently if they showed contrition but that clearly didn't happen. They didn't win appeal either, showing consensus of that view. Whether judges should have powers of discretion is another topic but it is generally held to be a positive thing. You may be sure there is a full accounting of which actions defined the 140 million dollar fine in court documents. So far the broad strokes are: "The breakdown of Hogan’s award is $55 million for economic damages, $60 million for emotional distress and $25.1 million in punitive damages." Perhaps I am less shocked by the sentence than yourself because I used to live near characters like this one: http://www.murderpedia.org/female.O/o/oconnor-catherine.htm http://www.murderpedia.org/female.O/o/oconnor-catherine.htm Probably not a good idea to know too many people on murderpedia.org. Compared to that this is nothing. It's just rich people fighting. Nick Denton is still probably the owner of about 100 million dollars after his 10 million dollar fine and Gawker going bust. It's his pride and reputation damage to his business acumen that is suffering more so than his wallet. I have limited sympathy for such characters. Thiel on the other hand deserves a standing ovation for use of tactics and strategy. That was quite the judo flip! More important in the future is whether Denton will be able to accept defeat sanguinely and move onto something else. Pitching a cadre of journalists against Silicon Valley will not end well for the press. The politician repercussions would not ultimately go in their favor and I don't believe they understand that yet. They invariably confuse the rules of their social reality with ours, but we have nothing in common.

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
A judge does have the power to bankrupt a corporation with fines. I've heard of a judge double sentencing in minutes based on the defendant's behavior: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/23/judge-allowed-to-double-laughing-defendants-sentence-court-rules http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/23/judge-allowed... The crime of criminal damage to Hogan (future income) would have dented Gawker's coffers but it is the refusal to obey a court order that did them in. The judge might have stayed her hand or advised the jury differently if they showed contrition but that clearly didn't happen. They didn't win appeal either, showing consensus of that view. Whether judges should have powers of discretion is another topic but it is generally held to be a positive thing. You may be sure there is a full accounting of which actions defined the 140 million dollar fine in court documents. So far the broad strokes are: "The breakdown of Hogan’s award is $55 million for economic damages, $60 million for emotional distress and $25.1 million in punitive damages." Perhaps I am less shocked by the sentence than yourself because I used to live near characters like this one: http://www.murderpedia.org/female.O/o/oconnor-catherine.htm http://www.murderpedia.org/female.O/o/oconnor-catherine.htm Probably not a good idea to know too many people on murderpedia.org. Compared to that this is nothing. It's just rich people fighting. Nick Denton is still probably the owner of about 100 million dollars after his 10 million dollar fine and Gawker going bust. It's his pride and reputation damage to his business acumen that is suffering more so than his wallet. I have limited sympathy for such characters. Thiel on the other hand deserves a standing ovation for use of tactics and strategy. That was quite the judo flip! More important in the future is whether Denton will be able to accept defeat sanguinely and move onto something else. Pitching a cadre of journalists against Silicon Valley will not end well for the press. The politician repercussions would not ultimately go in their favor and I don't believe they understand that yet. They invariably confuse the rules of their social reality with ours, but we have nothing in common.