1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gawker.com go bye-bye

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by wicked, Aug 18, 2016.

  1. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    "Indefensible"? This Harvard Law prof doesn't think so. I'll be interested in hearing the replies from the legal eagles here.

    Sorry, Hulk Hogan, the First Amendment Is on Gawker's Side
     
  2. dirtybird

    dirtybird Well-Known Member

    This is fair. That said, I'm not sure how the privacy of a person who whored out his family is worth $115 million. I'm sure that's been chewed over, but it seems high. Shit, how high could it go if they violated the privacy of someone who actually lived a private life?

    I'm sure someone has pointed out the hypocrisies within Thiel's open politics and business dealings and the privacy crusade, so I won't dig too hard into them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2016
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I hadn't read that. But I had the same reaction when the jury came back with the decision. Hulk Hogan is 1) a public figure, 2) had talked publicly (jokingly) about the sex tape and about his sexual prowess.

    Gawker lost a case due to a state law that makes it illegal to embarrass someone by publicizing private facts about their life. I don't see how that kind of law is kosher, period, but particularly when it comes to a public figure.

    I don't want to make Nick Denton into a martyr. He's a sleazeball. But this was not justice. Set aside the ridiculous law. The law then gave the jury the ability to reward unreasonable financial damages, essentially creating a remedy that far outweighed any harm done. Isn't that at odds with the purpose of civil law? Then add in the fact that the whole thing was being bankrolled by a thin-skinned non-party who was out for revenge, because he didn't like Denton. That isn't how our civil system should work. It just feels wrong.

    I don't know if anyone read Peter Thiel's op ed in the New York Times, but it had me shaking my head. On the one hand, he said that it's not his role to decide or judge what journalists can cover. But in the same paragraph, he contradicted himself, saying a free press is too important to be undermined by people like Nick Denton.

    Therefore. ... well, we needed Peter Thiel to right the situation. He incomprehensibly doesn't seem to get that he did make it his role to regulate what journalists can cover. And the reason he got to hijack that role is because of a really bad law and the fact that he had a huge checkbook. He may have done an ace job of fucking with someone he hated. Kudos for that. He destroyed Nick Denton. But he shouldn't be patting himself on the back for performing some kind public service, And he should realize he contradicted himself in trying to rationalize it all and make himself into a hero to all of us.
     
    Big Circus and lcjjdnh like this.
  4. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    I would have happily defended the version of Gawker that existed only in the fantasies of its biggest defenders.
     
    Ice9 likes this.
  5. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    "Indefensible" was my opinion. Thought that was clear, but maybe not.

    I will defer to the good professor. He can defer to the courts, though. Anyway, the threat of lawsuit for published material has always existed. Gawker was doing everything they could to find out where the line was. And they found it.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I don't think I have ever seen anyone say that Gawker's sites aren't sleazy and smarmy at times -- at least not anyone who wasn't commenting 100 times a day on their site. If anything, the version of Gawker I usually saw people talk about was the one that crossed lines of good taste. Am I missing something?

    Likewise, I have seen lots of people point out that while there was a certain schadenfreude in seeing Nick Denton humbled that way, the way it was actually done wasn't quite right. You can feel that way and not be living some fantasy of what Gawker is. For one thing, it was a crap state law that has the potential to stifle the work of people (and destroy those people) you might like a lot more than AJ Daulerio (and find more valuable). For another, the law itself runs roughshod over the first amendment. For a third, Peter Thiel's involvement, while funny from the "obsessed with revenge" standpoint, in effect made it so that anyone with the ability to spend a boatload of money has the potential to use shitty laws to shut up anyone he or she doesn't like. His bankrolling that mess may have been legal (and funny on the level of, "Oh shit did he destroy them."), but would you feel the same way about how it went down if a Peter Thiel, or someone like him, decided some news source or something you find more legit needs to be destroyed because of a vendetta?
     
    Big Circus and lcjjdnh like this.
  7. Thiel was also the guy was outed by Gawker and embarrassed by Gawker for no apparent reason.
    So, I totally understand his dedication to kill them off. Can't say I woudn't have done the same thing. With a smile on my face.

    Like Ragu, I was surprised Hogan's suit held up, muchless killed Gawker. But I am not shedding any tears for Denton. He was due a comeuppance.
    Like CD said, Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.
     
  8. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    If the consequences come in the court of public opinion, that's one of thing. If the consequences come in a court of law, that's another. Your slogan is meaningless. What exactly does "freedom of speech" mean if you can lose $120MM judgment for saying something squarely protected by the First Amendment? That's not to say all speech is protected by the First Amendment--of course it's not--but even things within the ambit of the First Amendment have no protection if what you say is true.

    As for the Thiel, here's what the author of the original post had to say.

    Gawker, Peter Thiel and me

     
  9. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Not to mention Hogan's lawyer dropped a claim so that Gawker would lose its insurance coverage. Probably not something that makes sense for the rational plaintiff--unless you're being bankrolled by a billionaire with an axe to grind.
     
  10. JimmyHoward33

    JimmyHoward33 Well-Known Member

    This is no different than the "legal eagles" that had Brady's side on Deflategate. In court, down to brass tacks, they lost and so did Gawker.

    You can find reasonable and educated lawyers that can argue the losing side of most cases and sound right. That's the nature of the beast with the law.
     
  11. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Doesn't that make Thiel's actions all the more troubling? The "nature of the beast with law" means that a court could reach a similar decision about something you don't find quite as reprehensible.

    Also worth noting the case was before a state-court judge in Florida--and a pretty terrible one at that. Far from a legal genius.
     
  12. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page