3 ms·

> but Gawker died because of Gawker, not just because some rich guy went after them. No. Gawker died because of a billionaire who wanted to take it down and t

> but Gawker died because of Gawker, not just because some rich guy went after them. No. Gawker died because of a billionaire who wanted to take it down and the mass PR firm he hired to get people on his side on social media. Also, the top comments on this thread are repeating the same lies over and over again. > publishing an illegaly-obtained sex tape in its entirety Was it illegal? Then why isn't the gawker people in prison? > and refusing to take it down after a judge orders to do so? They have a right to refuse an unconstitutional order and their refusal was vindicated by the courts. "The injunction was quickly stayed on appeal, and was denied in 2014 by the appeals court, which ruled that under the circumstances it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker The courts ruled that the judge's injunction violated FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. The top comments in this thread repeat the same debunked lies over and over again. But I guess that's the power of billionaires and their PR firms. A lie repeated over and over again becomes the truth?

openasocket 9y ago
You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject, but people also have the right to judge you for that. You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial. They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value." On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject I know. That's my point. Not only that, the appeals court ruled in favor of gawkers. > but people also have the right to judge you for that. Sure... >You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial. No I'm not. I actually addressed it. > They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value." No. That's not why they lost. Trials are FICKLE. > On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases. What does this have to do with "revenge porn"?
  - openasocket 9y ago
    I've looked at the facts of the case, and it seems clear to me that Gawker was guilty of an invasion of privacy, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Can you give me an argument, based on the facts of the case, that Gawker did not commit those violations?
mdpopescu 9y ago
I think it's interesting (in a "train accident" sort of way) how many downvotes without any counter-argument you're getting...
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > I think it's interesting (in a "train accident" sort of way) how many downvotes without any counter-argument you're getting... Not only that. If you look at the replies, there is a "core group" who are repeating the SAME THING over and over again. The same debunked lies. I'm not a fan of gawker. I'm not that sad that they aren't around. But what I am shocked by is that it was taken out by a vindictive billionaire with an agenda. It's surprising how a select group of accounts are attacking me for pointing that out. There were TONS of websites that published all or parts of the sex tape before gawker. And yet, thiel went after gawker. Apparently, a site being attacked and bankrupted by a vindictive billionaire is a praise worthy thing in a free society to a select group of people on HN. It's a very strange thing to behold.
  - thrownuance 9y ago
    the distinction seems to be that you believe that Thiel's presence surrenders some sort of imaginary moral high ground that leaves Gawker in the clear despite reprehensible behavior. this is relatively senseless when examined flatly
austenallred 9y ago
What about he whole "Gawker lost the trial" part? That seems to be rather neglected in this explanation...
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > What about he whole "Gawker lost the trial" part? Nothing. What's your point? As I said, JURIES aren't infallible. The prosecutors lost the case against OJ simpson. What's your point? > That seems to be rather neglected in this explanation... No. The point is that someone who had NOTHING to do with the hogan case decided to inject themselves and use their money to bankrupt a company. Okay?
  - austenallred 9y ago
    The way they "injected themselves" into the case was by funding the legal fees. Gawker lost in a court of law. If your contention is that the jury was wrong, then your issue should be with the court system, not with the fact that someone paid to take Gawker to court. Gawker had a fair trial in a US court of law and it lost. If that didn't happen it couldn't go out of business.

openasocket 9y ago

You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject, but people also have the right to judge you for that. You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial. They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value." On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject I know. That's my point. Not only that, the appeals court ruled in favor of gawkers. > but people also have the right to judge you for that. Sure... >You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial. No I'm not. I actually addressed it. > They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value." No. That's not why they lost. Trials are FICKLE. > On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases. What does this have to do with "revenge porn"?
- openasocket 9y ago
  I've looked at the facts of the case, and it seems clear to me that Gawker was guilty of an invasion of privacy, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Can you give me an argument, based on the facts of the case, that Gawker did not commit those violations?

mdpopescu 9y ago

I think it's interesting (in a "train accident" sort of way) how many downvotes without any counter-argument you're getting...

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> I think it's interesting (in a "train accident" sort of way) how many downvotes without any counter-argument you're getting... Not only that. If you look at the replies, there is a "core group" who are repeating the SAME THING over and over again. The same debunked lies. I'm not a fan of gawker. I'm not that sad that they aren't around. But what I am shocked by is that it was taken out by a vindictive billionaire with an agenda. It's surprising how a select group of accounts are attacking me for pointing that out. There were TONS of websites that published all or parts of the sex tape before gawker. And yet, thiel went after gawker. Apparently, a site being attacked and bankrupted by a vindictive billionaire is a praise worthy thing in a free society to a select group of people on HN. It's a very strange thing to behold.
- thrownuance 9y ago
  the distinction seems to be that you believe that Thiel's presence surrenders some sort of imaginary moral high ground that leaves Gawker in the clear despite reprehensible behavior. this is relatively senseless when examined flatly

austenallred 9y ago

What about he whole "Gawker lost the trial" part? That seems to be rather neglected in this explanation...

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> What about he whole "Gawker lost the trial" part? Nothing. What's your point? As I said, JURIES aren't infallible. The prosecutors lost the case against OJ simpson. What's your point? > That seems to be rather neglected in this explanation... No. The point is that someone who had NOTHING to do with the hogan case decided to inject themselves and use their money to bankrupt a company. Okay?
- austenallred 9y ago
  The way they "injected themselves" into the case was by funding the legal fees. Gawker lost in a court of law. If your contention is that the jury was wrong, then your issue should be with the court system, not with the fact that someone paid to take Gawker to court. Gawker had a fair trial in a US court of law and it lost. If that didn't happen it couldn't go out of business.