5 ms·

As Gawker learned, media corporations are't above the law

20 points by wtbob 10y ago

ChrisNorstrom 10y ago
Anyone want to join me in pooling in some money to web scrape Gawker.com along with the comments for future archiving? Once it's gone it's gone. (and no Archive.org doesn't grab everything, especially if it's hiding behind "click to load more" links) I'm thinking of doing the same with all of NPR's comments before they get deleted on Aug 23.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  I'll be frank, I would rather give you money to just let it die. Gawker isn't what the world needs.
  - ChrisNorstrom 10y ago
    Gawker is evil and that's why it needs to be preserved as a valuable lesson in propaganda for future generations. So one day when kids ask "show me an example of far left liberal extremist propaganda" you can show them the Gawker Archives.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      We have many extant examples of shitty gossip sites. the politics of said sites aren't really important in any way I can imagine. Beyond that, gawker isn't even far left. It's just populist. We have many extant examples of shitty populist sites as well.
vkou 10y ago
They aren't... But it also showed that it takes being a billionaire to enforce the law.
cagenut 10y ago
Reminder for the 1000th time: this verdict was the product of venue shopping until they landed in front of an insane judge and a half dozen floridians. Earlier courts ruled in Gawkers favor and the eventual appeal will rule in Gawkers favor. The law is 100% on their side regardless of the frivolity of the post. It just turns out that given enough time and money you can buy the justice you want.
- doug1001 10y ago
  thank you. Looks like 1000 is not enough though. Next 'reminder' maybe place between <h2></h2>; 'blink' tag might not hurt either.
manishsharan 10y ago
As Torontonian, I want to thank Gawker for breaking the story "Rob Ford smoking crack" story.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  As a regular dude who was thinking way too much about a former college girlfriend. I want to thank Gawker for showing me a picture of her in Cabo with at least 30 dudes. I don't want to get into a debate. She was just a product of life/business circumstances? I just remember a girl who who suddenly got depressed when other pretty girls were around, at work, or wherever. She was on a company vacation, but seeing her with so many seemingly desperate dudes, jerked me back into realty pretty quick. I never wanted a Amish girlfriend, but I didn't want a canieving, opportunist then, nor now. And yes--I guess it's a bit sexist? I had to include that last sentence. Why--just because. She was a statistics/accounting major in college. She was always gauging her odds for seemingly everything. When I heard she got tired of San Francisco, and still wasen't married, I just had a hunch she would go to a place that she thought would up her her social desirability. I figured she thought Silicon Valley would be the place--a lot of ambitious white guys. That's where she ended up. It was probally business related move, but I was so glad I saw her in that publication years ago. I believe it was called The Valley Wag in the day. It saved a lot of speculation, or what's the phrase--maybe regret over what could have been?
thegayngler 10y ago
There is going to be 40 others that pop up in its place and you can bet that they'll be more prepared to withstand justice shopping efforts.
- spriggan3 10y ago
  > There is going to be 40 others that pop up in its place and you can bet that they'll be more prepared to withstand justice shopping efforts. What does that mean "justice shopping" ? are you implying that Hulk Hogan lawsuit was frivolous or he somehow bought judges with Thiel's money ? can you be more specific ?
  - thegayngler 10y ago
    First off Hulk Hogan was washed up before this incident. 100million+ dollars was way over the top. Secondly, Hulk Hogan didn't lose any money from it. Where is the damage other than it gave him publicity. People have had medical procedures go wrong and been unlawfully murdered by law enforcement and gotten far and away less money. The reason I use the term justice shopping is because Peter Theil had been unsuccessful at attempts to get back a Gawker for outing him in previous law suits. TBQH he's a hypocrite on the issue of gay rights. Peter should stop making his sexuality everyone else's problem. So what someone said you were gay and you are gay. Big f-n deal. I'm gay myself. Hulk Hogan made a movie and is mad it got released. If you don't want your movie released, you don't make it in the first place. He is a celebrity and knows the risks. This isn't some non-public figure. I don't like the implications here that if the media reports on something you don't like, jamming up the court system with law suit after law suit is a viable option.
chasing 10y ago
Even if you believe that Gawker was guilty of something in posting the Hogan sex tapes, I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can view the annihilation of the company as justice. The other side on this case certainly wasn't out for justice, that seems clear. They were out for blood and revenge. And they got it. Gawker fucked up a lot. But our media landscape is worse off without it.
- bsg75 10y ago
  I'm genuinely interested in how this community views the demise of a site like gawker will have an actual effect on those like the NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc. ?
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    well, Gawker is a nuisance/gadfly that throws a lot of dirt all over, while NYT/CNN/WaPo are very establishment and play nice with all but the very worst of rich people so I don't know if they are the same "community"
- lmkg 10y ago
  Gawker is not being destroyed because they broke the law. Many companies, including media companies, do that on the regular. Gawker is being destroyed because a billionaire didn't like them, and decided to devote enough time & money to destroy them. Regardless of your opinion of Gawker, the precedent is that news publishers can successfully be destroyed if they make powerful enemies. Many news sites are already hesitant to report on powerful individuals, and now they are being proven that they were right to do so. For someone like me who believes that a free press is an important check on power, this is bad precedent to set.
  - andylei 10y ago
    actually, it seems like gawker is being destroyed because it made powerful enemies AND broke the law.
- curt15 10y ago
CM30 10y ago
Just as it should be. In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get away with, ethics or newsworthiness be damned. And in a lot of cases, they got away with this purely because the people who were affected weren't rich enough to fight against the company's army of lawyers. You can see this mindset quite fine in the answer to a question A.J. Daulerio (Gawker editor) was asked in court: Interviewer: Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy? Daulerio: If they were a child Interviewer: Under what age? Daulerio: Four That's not edited. He actually said that was where Gawker would draw in regards to what the minimum age for a sex tape featured on their site was. And that sort of thing is a trend in modern tabloid journalism. The idea that anything goes, privacy and ethics be damned as long as it gets clicka/the person affected is someone we don't like. In some cases, even if that means encouraging violence towards political opponents and riots. This lawsuit will hopefully teach the media that freedom of the press doesn't mean 'anything goes, laws be damned'. Maybe it'll also encourage journalists and editors to think about the consequences of their actions rather than just how many page views they'll get...
- CarpetBench 10y ago
  I mean, he's clearly joking if you read the transcript. He's an idiot for having even made that joke, but still. I think that whole conversation is a perfect example of why you have to be extremely careful when making tasteless jokes, especially in situations we typically think of as fairly serious (e.g. court). The jury probably didn't think highly of Gawker after that exchange, either.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    He was under oath. Don't make jokes while under oath is a pretty good guide to life.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
      Anybody stupid enough to make a joke like that under oath in a court room deserves to be fired. Any company stupid enough hire a person like that and place them in a position of authority deserves bankruptcy.
spriggan3 10y ago
Rightfully so. Gawker was one the most obnoxious "news organisation" out there. But what is more shocking to me is how other news org are still defending Gawker, under the excuse of "free speech". I mean, one would think that the last thing all these prominent orgs would want is to be associated with Gawker in anyway, but no, they actually defended that rag and its owners.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
  I think there is actually a major conflict of interest going on. If you look, many of the news organizations that are decrying the Gawker verdict either have current or past ties to Gawker or have close family/friends that do.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I would imagine they are a bit worried because they have been pretty immune from lawsuits because of cost and court ruling protecting newspapers from even spreading false statements. When people who can crush others with just words on a page lose their immunity, they get very, very nervous of all the stuff they have written in haste over the years.
- gaius 10y ago
  "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", campus activists are saying.

20 points by wtbob 10y ago

Anyone want to join me in pooling in some money to web scrape Gawker.com along with the comments for future archiving? Once it's gone it's gone. (and no Archive.org doesn't grab everything, especially if it's hiding behind "click to load more" links) I'm thinking of doing the same with all of NPR's comments before they get deleted on Aug 23.

oldmanjay 10y ago
I'll be frank, I would rather give you money to just let it die. Gawker isn't what the world needs.
- ChrisNorstrom 10y ago
  Gawker is evil and that's why it needs to be preserved as a valuable lesson in propaganda for future generations. So one day when kids ask "show me an example of far left liberal extremist propaganda" you can show them the Gawker Archives.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    We have many extant examples of shitty gossip sites. the politics of said sites aren't really important in any way I can imagine. Beyond that, gawker isn't even far left. It's just populist. We have many extant examples of shitty populist sites as well.

vkou 10y ago

They aren't... But it also showed that it takes being a billionaire to enforce the law.

cagenut 10y ago

Reminder for the 1000th time: this verdict was the product of venue shopping until they landed in front of an insane judge and a half dozen floridians. Earlier courts ruled in Gawkers favor and the eventual appeal will rule in Gawkers favor. The law is 100% on their side regardless of the frivolity of the post. It just turns out that given enough time and money you can buy the justice you want.

doug1001 10y ago
thank you. Looks like 1000 is not enough though. Next 'reminder' maybe place between <h2></h2>; 'blink' tag might not hurt either.

manishsharan 10y ago

As Torontonian, I want to thank Gawker for breaking the story "Rob Ford smoking crack" story.

icantdrive55 10y ago
As a regular dude who was thinking way too much about a former college girlfriend. I want to thank Gawker for showing me a picture of her in Cabo with at least 30 dudes. I don't want to get into a debate. She was just a product of life/business circumstances? I just remember a girl who who suddenly got depressed when other pretty girls were around, at work, or wherever. She was on a company vacation, but seeing her with so many seemingly desperate dudes, jerked me back into realty pretty quick. I never wanted a Amish girlfriend, but I didn't want a canieving, opportunist then, nor now. And yes--I guess it's a bit sexist? I had to include that last sentence. Why--just because. She was a statistics/accounting major in college. She was always gauging her odds for seemingly everything. When I heard she got tired of San Francisco, and still wasen't married, I just had a hunch she would go to a place that she thought would up her her social desirability. I figured she thought Silicon Valley would be the place--a lot of ambitious white guys. That's where she ended up. It was probally business related move, but I was so glad I saw her in that publication years ago. I believe it was called The Valley Wag in the day. It saved a lot of speculation, or what's the phrase--maybe regret over what could have been?

thegayngler 10y ago

There is going to be 40 others that pop up in its place and you can bet that they'll be more prepared to withstand justice shopping efforts.

spriggan3 10y ago
> There is going to be 40 others that pop up in its place and you can bet that they'll be more prepared to withstand justice shopping efforts. What does that mean "justice shopping" ? are you implying that Hulk Hogan lawsuit was frivolous or he somehow bought judges with Thiel's money ? can you be more specific ?
- thegayngler 10y ago
  First off Hulk Hogan was washed up before this incident. 100million+ dollars was way over the top. Secondly, Hulk Hogan didn't lose any money from it. Where is the damage other than it gave him publicity. People have had medical procedures go wrong and been unlawfully murdered by law enforcement and gotten far and away less money. The reason I use the term justice shopping is because Peter Theil had been unsuccessful at attempts to get back a Gawker for outing him in previous law suits. TBQH he's a hypocrite on the issue of gay rights. Peter should stop making his sexuality everyone else's problem. So what someone said you were gay and you are gay. Big f-n deal. I'm gay myself. Hulk Hogan made a movie and is mad it got released. If you don't want your movie released, you don't make it in the first place. He is a celebrity and knows the risks. This isn't some non-public figure. I don't like the implications here that if the media reports on something you don't like, jamming up the court system with law suit after law suit is a viable option.

chasing 10y ago

Even if you believe that Gawker was guilty of something in posting the Hogan sex tapes, I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can view the annihilation of the company as justice. The other side on this case certainly wasn't out for justice, that seems clear. They were out for blood and revenge. And they got it. Gawker fucked up a lot. But our media landscape is worse off without it.

bsg75 10y ago
I'm genuinely interested in how this community views the demise of a site like gawker will have an actual effect on those like the NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc. ?
- RodericDay 10y ago
  well, Gawker is a nuisance/gadfly that throws a lot of dirt all over, while NYT/CNN/WaPo are very establishment and play nice with all but the very worst of rich people so I don't know if they are the same "community"
lmkg 10y ago
Gawker is not being destroyed because they broke the law. Many companies, including media companies, do that on the regular. Gawker is being destroyed because a billionaire didn't like them, and decided to devote enough time & money to destroy them. Regardless of your opinion of Gawker, the precedent is that news publishers can successfully be destroyed if they make powerful enemies. Many news sites are already hesitant to report on powerful individuals, and now they are being proven that they were right to do so. For someone like me who believes that a free press is an important check on power, this is bad precedent to set.
- andylei 10y ago
  actually, it seems like gawker is being destroyed because it made powerful enemies AND broke the law.
curt15 10y ago

CM30 10y ago

Just as it should be. In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get away with, ethics or newsworthiness be damned. And in a lot of cases, they got away with this purely because the people who were affected weren't rich enough to fight against the company's army of lawyers. You can see this mindset quite fine in the answer to a question A.J. Daulerio (Gawker editor) was asked in court: Interviewer: Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy? Daulerio: If they were a child Interviewer: Under what age? Daulerio: Four That's not edited. He actually said that was where Gawker would draw in regards to what the minimum age for a sex tape featured on their site was. And that sort of thing is a trend in modern tabloid journalism. The idea that anything goes, privacy and ethics be damned as long as it gets clicka/the person affected is someone we don't like. In some cases, even if that means encouraging violence towards political opponents and riots. This lawsuit will hopefully teach the media that freedom of the press doesn't mean 'anything goes, laws be damned'. Maybe it'll also encourage journalists and editors to think about the consequences of their actions rather than just how many page views they'll get...

CarpetBench 10y ago
I mean, he's clearly joking if you read the transcript. He's an idiot for having even made that joke, but still. I think that whole conversation is a perfect example of why you have to be extremely careful when making tasteless jokes, especially in situations we typically think of as fairly serious (e.g. court). The jury probably didn't think highly of Gawker after that exchange, either.
- protomyth 10y ago
  He was under oath. Don't make jokes while under oath is a pretty good guide to life.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
    Anybody stupid enough to make a joke like that under oath in a court room deserves to be fired. Any company stupid enough hire a person like that and place them in a position of authority deserves bankruptcy.

spriggan3 10y ago

Rightfully so. Gawker was one the most obnoxious "news organisation" out there. But what is more shocking to me is how other news org are still defending Gawker, under the excuse of "free speech". I mean, one would think that the last thing all these prominent orgs would want is to be associated with Gawker in anyway, but no, they actually defended that rag and its owners.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
I think there is actually a major conflict of interest going on. If you look, many of the news organizations that are decrying the Gawker verdict either have current or past ties to Gawker or have close family/friends that do.
protomyth 10y ago
I would imagine they are a bit worried because they have been pretty immune from lawsuits because of cost and court ruling protecting newspapers from even spreading false statements. When people who can crush others with just words on a page lose their immunity, they get very, very nervous of all the stuff they have written in haste over the years.
gaius 10y ago
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", campus activists are saying.