4 ms·

The precedent isn't about the quality of your journalism, it's "get a billionaire angry, get sued into oblivion". That's what scares people. Mother Jones near

by fatbird 10y ago

The precedent isn't about the quality of your journalism, it's "get a billionaire angry, get sued into oblivion". That's what scares people. Mother Jones nearly faced the same fate for very good journalism.

nostrademons 10y ago
Don't forget the part about publishing a sex tape without knowledge of the party involved. Mother Jones won their lawsuit, because the statements they published were both true and in the public interest. There is a very large difference between what Gawker did and what Mother Jones did, and the judgments reflect that.
- fatbird 10y ago
  Mother Jones won but nearly went bankrupt in the process of defending itself, and bankrupting Gawker by legal fees was always Thiel's plan--that's why he was funding a variety of lawsuits against Gawker, not just Hogan's. If one came home, as Hogan's did, it just hastened the day.
jdmichal 10y ago
That's a problem with the legal system that's not tied to journalism at all. It could happen to any company or person at any time. As long as the case looks to have enough merit to avoid dismissal, then rack those legal costs up! The only precedent related to journalism here is that journalists doing illegal things is still illegal.
ambicapter 10y ago
It actually is about the quality of the journalism though, as the point was the "reporting" (gossip and 'mean girls'-esque harrassing) turned out to be illegal. Was Mother Jones accused of >illegal< reporting?
- fatbird 10y ago
  Mother Jones won on the merits of its journalism, but still nearly went bankrupt defending itself. Winning is the faster version, but Thiel was funding several lawsuits against Gawker to bleed them dry--takes longer, but works just as well. And remember, a legal victory isn't over until the appeals are complete. Gawker collapsed before exhausting its appeals--again, financial exhaustion, not moral defeat.

by fatbird 10y ago

nostrademons 10y ago

Don't forget the part about publishing a sex tape without knowledge of the party involved. Mother Jones won their lawsuit, because the statements they published were both true and in the public interest. There is a very large difference between what Gawker did and what Mother Jones did, and the judgments reflect that.

fatbird 10y ago
Mother Jones won but nearly went bankrupt in the process of defending itself, and bankrupting Gawker by legal fees was always Thiel's plan--that's why he was funding a variety of lawsuits against Gawker, not just Hogan's. If one came home, as Hogan's did, it just hastened the day.

jdmichal 10y ago

That's a problem with the legal system that's not tied to journalism at all. It could happen to any company or person at any time. As long as the case looks to have enough merit to avoid dismissal, then rack those legal costs up! The only precedent related to journalism here is that journalists doing illegal things is still illegal.

ambicapter 10y ago

It actually is about the quality of the journalism though, as the point was the "reporting" (gossip and 'mean girls'-esque harrassing) turned out to be illegal. Was Mother Jones accused of >illegal< reporting?

fatbird 10y ago
Mother Jones won on the merits of its journalism, but still nearly went bankrupt defending itself. Winning is the faster version, but Thiel was funding several lawsuits against Gawker to bleed them dry--takes longer, but works just as well. And remember, a legal victory isn't over until the appeals are complete. Gawker collapsed before exhausting its appeals--again, financial exhaustion, not moral defeat.