4 ms·

Whether or not you think what Gawker did was right, it is a terrible precedent that a billionaire can shut down the entire publication by funding lawsuits for o

Whether or not you think what Gawker did was right, it is a terrible precedent that a billionaire can shut down the entire publication by funding lawsuits for other people against the publisher. There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit. It is a slippery slope. No one feels too bad about a sex tape getting taken down, but cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish and err on the conservative side or else risk their entire publication being closed. This has a chilling effect on investigative journalism.

Chris2048 10y ago
> it is a terrible precedent that a billionaire can only people without money should be able to sue? > There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit. So this is Thiels fault, not Gawker? Gawker got away with a lot of shit before it was finally called on it. > cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish Yes, is that difficult? > This has a chilling effect on investigative journalism I disagree, the degrees of freedom Gawker had were far too much, it didn't even try to be fair. What actual good did Gawker do?
- mrgordon 10y ago
  > only people without money should be able to sue? Is this what I said? No. But outspending a publication by an order of magnitude so that they either go bankrupt fighting you or lose the case is an example of how you can abuse the court system if you have way more money than your opponent. Its the same tactics large corporations use to sue small corporations in order to force them to settle regardless of whether they are right or wrong. >> There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit. > So this is Thiels fault, not Gawker? Gawker got away with a lot of shit before it was finally called on it. Well yes, I see it as Thiel's fault because he wasn't a party to the case in any way but decided to give Hogan a blank check to send a huge team of lawyers after Gawker. Even if that was perhaps fair game, they didn't have to sue for so much that they literally shut down the entire organization. >> cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish > Yes, is that difficult? Yes it is. Its not black and white so there will necessarily be cases in the gray area (cases that could be very important and in the public interest) where publications will say "we can't publish this because we only have $10 million and someone with $10 billion could sue us and we will lose simply based on lawyer fees." For example, see the woman who was sexually harassed by Trump but backed down from talking about it publicly after Trump said he was sending an army of lawyers after her. How can someone who might make say $50,000 defend herself against a multi-billionaire? So we get censorship for no reason other than fear of billionaires suing. > I disagree, the degrees of freedom Gawker had were far too much, it didn't even try to be fair. What actual good did Gawker do? I already answered this above but here is one series of examples: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker/ https://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker... I don't agree with Wired that all of those were super important but some of them clearly are. For example, Buzzfeed removing articles that were critical of their advertisers, the first exposes of the Silk Road and The Armory, evidence of Greg Hardy abusing his girlfriend, etc.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > Its the same tactics large corporations use to sue small corporations in order to force them to settle regardless of whether they are right or wrong The suggestion here is Theil bought the verdict? > they didn't have to sue for so much Doesn't the court decide if the amount is fair? And my point about "Gawker got away with a lot of shit" is that it is a net gain - Gawker did more harm then good. > we will lose simply based on lawyer fees Was that the case here? Gawker had merit, but could afford to even defend itself? > there will necessarily be cases in the gray area Then don't pusblish. Or just publish evidence. Neither apply here; It isn't important that Thiel is/isn't gay, it's important that Gawker shouldn't have published it. Where is the "gray area"? That Denton personally believes this personal information to be important? He should ask a lawyer. Or not use the publication as a vehicle for his personal values. > How can someone who might make say $50,000 defend herself against a multi-billionaire? This is a tangent, in in this case, there would be plenty wealthy liberals who hate Trump. Would it be unfair of them to do that?

Chris2048 10y ago

> it is a terrible precedent that a billionaire can only people without money should be able to sue? > There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit. So this is Thiels fault, not Gawker? Gawker got away with a lot of shit before it was finally called on it. > cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish Yes, is that difficult? > This has a chilling effect on investigative journalism I disagree, the degrees of freedom Gawker had were far too much, it didn't even try to be fair. What actual good did Gawker do?

mrgordon 10y ago
> only people without money should be able to sue? Is this what I said? No. But outspending a publication by an order of magnitude so that they either go bankrupt fighting you or lose the case is an example of how you can abuse the court system if you have way more money than your opponent. Its the same tactics large corporations use to sue small corporations in order to force them to settle regardless of whether they are right or wrong. >> There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit. > So this is Thiels fault, not Gawker? Gawker got away with a lot of shit before it was finally called on it. Well yes, I see it as Thiel's fault because he wasn't a party to the case in any way but decided to give Hogan a blank check to send a huge team of lawyers after Gawker. Even if that was perhaps fair game, they didn't have to sue for so much that they literally shut down the entire organization. >> cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish > Yes, is that difficult? Yes it is. Its not black and white so there will necessarily be cases in the gray area (cases that could be very important and in the public interest) where publications will say "we can't publish this because we only have $10 million and someone with $10 billion could sue us and we will lose simply based on lawyer fees." For example, see the woman who was sexually harassed by Trump but backed down from talking about it publicly after Trump said he was sending an army of lawyers after her. How can someone who might make say $50,000 defend herself against a multi-billionaire? So we get censorship for no reason other than fear of billionaires suing. > I disagree, the degrees of freedom Gawker had were far too much, it didn't even try to be fair. What actual good did Gawker do? I already answered this above but here is one series of examples: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker/ https://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker... I don't agree with Wired that all of those were super important but some of them clearly are. For example, Buzzfeed removing articles that were critical of their advertisers, the first exposes of the Silk Road and The Armory, evidence of Greg Hardy abusing his girlfriend, etc.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > Its the same tactics large corporations use to sue small corporations in order to force them to settle regardless of whether they are right or wrong The suggestion here is Theil bought the verdict? > they didn't have to sue for so much Doesn't the court decide if the amount is fair? And my point about "Gawker got away with a lot of shit" is that it is a net gain - Gawker did more harm then good. > we will lose simply based on lawyer fees Was that the case here? Gawker had merit, but could afford to even defend itself? > there will necessarily be cases in the gray area Then don't pusblish. Or just publish evidence. Neither apply here; It isn't important that Thiel is/isn't gay, it's important that Gawker shouldn't have published it. Where is the "gray area"? That Denton personally believes this personal information to be important? He should ask a lawyer. Or not use the publication as a vehicle for his personal values. > How can someone who might make say $50,000 defend herself against a multi-billionaire? This is a tangent, in in this case, there would be plenty wealthy liberals who hate Trump. Would it be unfair of them to do that?