Languish.org

Turns out it's Peter Thiel who's been secretly bankrolling suits against Gawker. Good times. And, apparently, he considers it to be "philanthropy".

Here's the original article from the NYT:

Quote from: New York TimesPeter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War With Gawker

A billionaire Silicon Valley entrepreneur was outed as being gay by a media organization. His friends suffered at the hands of the same gossip site. Nearly a decade later, the entrepreneur secretly financed a lawsuit to try to put the media company out of business.

That is the back story to a legal case that had already grabbed headlines: The wrestler Hulk Hogan sued Gawker Media for invasion of privacy after it published a sex tape, and a Florida jury recently awarded the wrestler, whose real name is Terry Gene Bollea, $140 million.

What the jury — and the public — did not know was that Mr. Bollea had a secret benefactor paying about $10 million for the lawsuit: Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and one of the earliest investors in Facebook.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html?_r=0

Gawker has replied to the revelations with an open letter here:

Quote from: GawlerAn Open Letter to Peter Thiel

You told the New York Times that you are motivated by friends who had their lives ruined by Gawker coverage, and that your funding is a "philanthropic" project to help other "victims" of negative stories. Let us run through a few examples so that people can actually read the articles you find so illegitimate, and make their own judgment about their newsworthiness.

http://gawker.com/an-open-letter-to-peter-thiel-1778991227?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Wired presents some commentary:

Quote from: WiredHow Can We Make You Happy Today, Peter Thiel?
Peter Thiel! Love that guy. Who wouldn't? What a fine, fine fella. Just look at those eyes—talk about a chilling effect!

If you don't know who Peter Thiel is, set your swoon-sockets to Stun, because Peter Thiel is the best—just an awesome, handsome, awesome guy—and we would never want to give the impression that we think otherwise. See how happy he is in this picture below? That's how we want him to look every time he thinks about his ol' buddies at Wired: "Great, great team. Total pros. Definitely not gonna get mad and team up with a former wrestler to secretly bankroll a lawsuit against them, and all because I didn't like what they said about me."

Three cheers for Peter Thiel!

And here's dome commentary that's a little more earnest:

Quote from: FusionPeter Thiel just gave other billionaires a dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

Funding Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker? That's not cool. Actively going out to find potential plaintiffs who might have cases against Gawker and then giving them the money to bring those cases? Even that's not cool.

You know what's cool? Reinventing the concept of philanthropy so as to include weapons-grade attacks on America's free press, and doing so from the very heart of The New Establishment.

This is the big story, which a lot of people are missing about the news that Peter Thiel secretly funded a series of lawsuits against Gawker: the Facebook board member and Silicon Valley demigod just gave the world a master class in how a billionaire can achieve enormous ends with a relatively modest investment. That's a lesson many of his friends are eager to be taught—not least his protégé, Mark Zuckerberg, who is just beginning to try to reinvent philanthropy for the 21st Century.

Thiel's interview with the New York Times about his legal campaign, in which a $10 million investment on lawyers managed to bring an entire media company to the brink of disaster, is the new required reading in Silicon Valley, especially the bit where he says that it's "one of my greater philanthropic things that I've done."

... it'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

There used to be prohibitions against that sort of thing: "champerty and maintenance". "Maintenance" was a stranger supporting a lawsuit; "champerty" was "maintenance" with the object of taking a share of the proceeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

This seems to be "maintenance" rather than "champerty" (from what little I'vre read, his motive was to encourage litigation against Gawker, not to make money from it).

Those prohibitions have been significantly eroded over time (what is a contingency fee, but a sort of champerty?). No idea whether they even exist in the US any more.

I don't use Gawker.

you remove thiel's ability to pay for someone else's lawsuit, and you hurt civil rights organizations all across the nation. non-orgs that search for especially sympathetic victims to back all the way to the supreme court set the background for a lot of cases where constitutional law developed. that's what the fusion article doesn't get. thiel didn't do anything that hasn't been done many times before; also, liberty is made or broken at the supreme court, not by billionaires funding lawsuits. at the end of the day, gawker overstepped its bounds and got slapped with a $140 mil judgment.

I agree with LaCroix.  This isn't about freedom of the press, this is about Gawker fucking up and getting hammered for it.

The award amount is absurd, of course, but we know that's how jury awards work.

gawker can go and hang. Freedom of press should not mean you can publish any lie with impunity.

Gawker people sound like retarded scum.

Quote from: The Brain on May 30, 2016, 04:16:33 PM
Gawker people sound like retarded scum.

Yeah. Freedom of speech is important but journalists these days think they are gods.

Quote from: Martinus on May 30, 2016, 04:19:28 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 30, 2016, 04:16:33 PM
Gawker people sound like retarded scum.

Yeah. Freedom of speech is important but journalists these days think they are gods.

"Liberal" opinion weighs in.
We can't have journalists blaspheming and all.

Quote from: Malthus on May 30, 2016, 12:46:02 PM
Those prohibitions have been significantly eroded over time (what is a contingency fee, but a sort of champerty?). No idea whether they even exist in the US any more.

They exist in a shadow sort of way, as common law doctrines that have been allowed to wither away, for mostly good reasons.

But even the common law didn't anticipate the possibility of extremely wealthy people forming vendetta funds against disfavored media organizations.

It's fine to say gawker deserved what they got in this particular case.  But apparently Thiel has spent years trying to find a case to take them down.  I don't think it's a great development that media orgs may have to look over their shoulder every time they offend the "wrong" person.

Dunno, this kind of situation is "fine" when it's a clear-cut case like Hogan's. Gawker even refused to comply a court order... however, I can see this used as a tool to silence media, who might be fearful to be hit by a barrage of lawsuits from people with endless pockets, even if the media is ultimately in the right. Can easily be death by a thousand cuts if you just can't afford to lawyer up.

Can't come up with an easy answer to protect everybody's rights and prevent abuse, so I guess I have nothing useful to contribute.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 30, 2016, 04:41:36 PM
I don't think it's a great development that media orgs may have to look over their shoulder every time they offend the "wrong" person.

If everyone else can live like this I'm sure media orgs can too.

Also weird that a billionaire enemy of Thiel is now funding Gawker's legal fees.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 30, 2016, 04:36:22 PM

Quote from: Martinus on May 30, 2016, 04:19:28 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 30, 2016, 04:16:33 PM
Gawker people sound like retarded scum.

Yeah. Freedom of speech is important but journalists these days think they are gods.

"Liberal" opinion weighs in.
We can't have journalists blaspheming and all.

I think he's just echoing Trump, yet again.

Eh, fuck Gawker. The world is a better place without their sociopathic clickbait.

Quote from: Legbiter on May 30, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
Eh, fuck Gawker. The world is a better place without their sociopathic clickbait.

First they came for the sociopathic clickbait,

then they came for the titillating click-bait,

then they came for the slighting annoying click-bait,

finally they came for my Yahoo.   :(

Quote from: mongers on May 30, 2016, 05:10:35 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on May 30, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
Eh, fuck Gawker. The world is a better place without their sociopathic clickbait.

First they came for the sociopathic clickbait,

then they came for the titillating click-bait,

then they came for the slighting annoying click-bait,

finally they came for my Yahoo.   :(

Not really.

Bankrupting immoral shitbags like Gawker is good for journalism.

Quote from: Legbiter on May 30, 2016, 05:16:22 PM

Quote from: mongers on May 30, 2016, 05:10:35 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on May 30, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
Eh, fuck Gawker. The world is a better place without their sociopathic clickbait.

First they came for the sociopathic clickbait,

then they came for the titillating click-bait,

then they came for the slighting annoying click-bait,

finally they came for my Yahoo.   :(

Not really.

Bankrupting immoral shitbags like Gawker is good for journalism.

Whoosh.

Quote from: mongers on May 30, 2016, 05:10:35 PM
finally they came for my Yahoo.   :(

Unfortunately the only ones coming for Yahoo are second tier greenmailers.

Quote from: celedhring on May 30, 2016, 04:43:59 PM
Can't come up with an easy answer to protect everybody's rights and prevent abuse, so I guess I have nothing useful to contribute.

I don't have any great answers either. 

I rather prefer a society that allows you to print nearly anything.

Quote from: mongers on May 30, 2016, 05:10:35 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on May 30, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
Eh, fuck Gawker. The world is a better place without their sociopathic clickbait.

First they came for the sociopathic clickbait,

then they came for the titillating click-bait,

then they came for the slighting annoying click-bait,

finally they came for my Yahoo.   :(

Where does languish fit in that scheme?

Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2016, 06:06:51 PM

Quote from: mongers on May 30, 2016, 05:10:35 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on May 30, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
Eh, fuck Gawker. The world is a better place without their sociopathic clickbait.

First they came for the sociopathic clickbait,

then they came for the titillating click-bait,

then they came for the slighting annoying click-bait,

finally they came for my Yahoo.   :(

Where does languish fit in that scheme?

It doesn't, it was a lame joke concluding with dig at My Yahoo, that both Legbiter JR took seriously.  :hmm:

Maybe gawker should get their own billionaire backer.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2016, 04:45:14 PM
Also weird that a billionaire enemy of Thiel is now funding Gawker's legal fees.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

... I missed that. What's the story there?

Quote from: Malthus on May 30, 2016, 12:46:02 PM
There used to be prohibitions against that sort of thing: "champerty and maintenance". "Maintenance" was a stranger supporting a lawsuit; "champerty" was "maintenance" with the object of taking a share of the proceeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

This seems to be "maintenance" rather than "champerty" (from what little I'vre read, his motive was to encourage litigation against Gawker, not to make money from it).

Those prohibitions have been significantly eroded over time (what is a contingency fee, but a sort of champerty?). No idea whether they even exist in the US any more.

Hong Kong still forbids lawyers from taking contingency fees upon winning a civil lawsuit. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2016, 04:45:14 PM
Also weird that a billionaire enemy of Thiel is now funding Gawker's legal fees.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

In the future present, we will be are just pawns of the billionaire class to use in their power struggles and petty feuds.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2016, 08:01:20 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 30, 2016, 04:45:14 PM
Also weird that a billionaire enemy of Thiel is now funding Gawker's legal fees.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

In the future present, we will be are just pawns of the billionaire class to use in their power struggles and petty feuds.

I don't mind serving as a pawn.  What I truly fear is when the billionaire class don't even need me as a pawn. 

There's no way to ban this kind of legal bankrolling without gutting the ACLU, NAACP, etc.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 30, 2016, 06:29:29 PM
Maybe gawker should get their own billionaire backer.

Or Languish. Although most posters here are clearly on George Soros's pay already. :P

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 31, 2016, 12:20:01 AM
There's no way to ban this kind of legal bankrolling without gutting the ACLU, NAACP, etc.

Or litigation finance industry.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 31, 2016, 12:20:01 AM
There's no way to ban this kind of legal bankrolling without gutting the ACLU, NAACP, etc.

Those were robust entities when the champerty and maintenance Malthus mentioned were still not accepted.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 31, 2016, 12:20:01 AM
There's no way to ban this kind of legal bankrolling without gutting the ACLU, NAACP, etc.

Technically not true - the Supreme Court case that addressed this issue, NAACP v. Button, held that advocacy by the NAACP (and thus organizations like that) was effectively political expression; thus "in the context of NAACP objectives, litigation is not a technique of resolving private differences."  The Court left open enforcement of traditional common law prohibitions where private gain as opposed to public interest was at stake, or where malicious intent was involved.  There are some states that still have such prohibitions in place; others have gotten rid of them, either directly or by allowing the common law doctrines to fall in abeyance.

Litigation funding services can also be distinguished from the gawker situation because the funder reviews cases on merits, and typically signs a formal agreement setting forth the responsibilities and obligations of the parties so that potential conflicts of interest can be assessed and policed

Quote from: LaCroix on May 30, 2016, 01:37:35 PM
you remove thiel's ability to pay for someone else's lawsuit, and you hurt civil rights organizations all across the nation. non-orgs that search for especially sympathetic victims to back all the way to the supreme court set the background for a lot of cases where constitutional law developed. that's what the fusion article doesn't get. thiel didn't do anything that hasn't been done many times before; also, liberty is made or broken at the supreme court, not by billionaires funding lawsuits. at the end of the day, gawker overstepped its bounds and got slapped with a $140 mil judgment.

the problem does not lie in the merit of said lawsuit.  It could be totally justified or totally unjustified.  The problem lies in the legal cost that are forced upon you to defend yourself on frivolous lawsuit.  A billionaire is able to spend a few millions here and there in lawsuit to hurt an entity he does not like.  If he loses, there is no consequences.  If he wins, there is maybe a consequence (he says he does it for free, but most likely, if the suit is won, the lawyers fees are reimbursed), but the result is the same for the target: millions of dollars spent on lawyers fees instead of useful activities.

That is the problem I see here.  Legal fees are so high that you can just sue someone into bankruptcy without evern winning, so long as you have deeper pockets.  Which is contrary to what justice is supposed to be.

Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2016, 10:03:20 AM
the problem does not lie in the merit of said lawsuit.  It could be totally justified or totally unjustified.  The problem lies in the legal cost that are forced upon you to defend yourself on frivolous lawsuit.  A billionaire is able to spend a few millions here and there in lawsuit to hurt an entity he does not like.  If he loses, there is no consequences.  If he wins, there is maybe a consequence (he says he does it for free, but most likely, if the suit is won, the lawyers fees are reimbursed), but the result is the same for the target: millions of dollars spent on lawyers fees instead of useful activities.

That is the problem I see here.  Legal fees are so high that you can just sue someone into bankruptcy without evern winning, so long as you have deeper pockets.  Which is contrary to what justice is supposed to be.

I am not convinced.  The ability to "just sue someone into bankruptcy" seems limited by the fact that frivolous (what you call "totally unjustified") lawsuits will be dismissed with costs.  If a lawsuit has merit and won't be dismissed, then it seems to me that there isn't a problem with appellants proceeding with it.

Yeah, I am thinking that if someone wants a poster example of abusing the justice system, one where the poor victim was actually and clearly in the wrong is not a great place to start.

Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2016, 10:12:39 AM
The ability to "just sue someone into bankruptcy" seems limited by the fact that frivolous (what you call "totally unjustified") lawsuits will be dismissed with costs. 

Taxable costs are usually negligible. Fee shifting is extremely rare. 

Btw I know that, generally, losers do not pay legal costs of the winner in US lawsuits (one big incentive for frivolous lawsuits, imo) but are there any court fees paid? In Poland (and most of continental Europe) you pay an initial fee which is a percentage of the value of the claim and which you forfeit if you lose (if you win, the loser has to pay the fee instead and your fee is reimbursed). For people who can demonstrate they are unable to pay the fee may be waived or deferred.

This, obviously, greatly disincentivises both frivolous lawsuits and making astronomical claims.

Quote from: Martinus on May 31, 2016, 10:43:40 AM
Btw I know that, generally, losers do not pay legal costs of the winner in US lawsuits (one big incentive for frivolous lawsuits, imo) but are there any court fees paid?

There can be but it's pretty minimal.  In NY for example, costs that can be assessed include things like witness fees, printing costs, transcript costs, etc., and even some of those are subject to caps.  It is usually measurable in the hundreds of dollars. 

Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2016, 10:12:39 AM
I am not convinced.  The ability to "just sue someone into bankruptcy" seems limited by the fact that frivolous (what you call "totally unjustified") lawsuits will be dismissed with costs.  If a lawsuit has merit and won't be dismissed, then it seems to me that there isn't a problem with appellants proceeding with it.

"dimissed with costs" implies basic legal costs, not full lawyers fee, no?  Out of 20 million$ expense, how much could you hope to regain by having the suit dismissed, a few thousand dollars?

Quote from: The Brain on May 30, 2016, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 30, 2016, 04:41:36 PM
I don't think it's a great development that media orgs may have to look over their shoulder every time they offend the "wrong" person.

If everyone else can live like this I'm sure media orgs can too.

Yeah I think this makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2016, 01:01:54 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2016, 10:12:39 AM
I am not convinced.  The ability to "just sue someone into bankruptcy" seems limited by the fact that frivolous (what you call "totally unjustified") lawsuits will be dismissed with costs.  If a lawsuit has merit and won't be dismissed, then it seems to me that there isn't a problem with appellants proceeding with it.

"dimissed with costs" implies basic legal costs, not full lawyers fee, no?  Out of 20 million$ expense, how much could you hope to regain by having the suit dismissed, a few thousand dollars?

$20 million in legal expenses? WTF?

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 10:13:53 AM
Yeah, I am thinking that if someone wants a poster example of abusing the justice system, one where the poor victim was actually and clearly in the wrong is not a great place to start.

It's like the Iran-Iraq war of free speech.

Quote from: Martinus on May 31, 2016, 10:43:40 AM
Btw I know that, generally, losers do not pay legal costs of the winner in US lawsuits (one big incentive for frivolous lawsuits, imo) but are there any court fees paid?

There are court fees in the UK but they're I think flat rate depending on the court you're issuing in/value of the claim.

The government's just more or less doubled a lot of the fees in part of Michael Gove's interesting idea of effectively taxing law firms in London to subsidise legal aid.

Court fees are an almost trivial amount of overall legal costs in Canada.  It costs $250 to file a Statement of Claim.

We do have a "loser pays" system however, so there is that disincentive.

Quote from: garbon on May 31, 2016, 01:06:22 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 30, 2016, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 30, 2016, 04:41:36 PM
I don't think it's a great development that media orgs may have to look over their shoulder every time they offend the "wrong" person.

If everyone else can live like this I'm sure media orgs can too.

Yeah I think this makes a lot of sense.

?
I took that as a tongue in cheek comment.  It doesn't make sense.  Media companies are private businesses.  Their reaction to financial risks is to manage them.  If certain classes of people have asymmetric abilities to foist costs on such companies, those people will benefit from less critical coverage.  That's a net negative to a free society.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2016, 02:23:17 PM

Quote from: garbon on May 31, 2016, 01:06:22 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 30, 2016, 04:44:11 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 30, 2016, 04:41:36 PM
I don't think it's a great development that media orgs may have to look over their shoulder every time they offend the "wrong" person.

If everyone else can live like this I'm sure media orgs can too.

Yeah I think this makes a lot of sense.

?
I took that as a tongue in cheek comment.  It doesn't make sense.  Media companies are private businesses.  Their reaction to financial risks is to manage them.  If certain classes of people have asymmetric abilities to foist costs on such companies, those people will benefit from less critical coverage.  That's a net negative to a free society.

But why is that dynamic limited to media companies? If an ability to foist costs (through the legal system) onto private entities exists for the wealthy, and they can use that to their advantage when dealing with those entities, isn't that a net negative to a free society? Regardless of whether the company is a media company or a developer or anything else.

It's more of a net negative because there's a public interest in a free media that isn't necessarily afraid of the rich. It's something we all benefit from.

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 01:41:32 PM
$20 million in legal expenses? WTF?

Case has gone on for 4 years, multiple forums (federal/state), 10 days of trial, and the appeals are just getting started.  So we are talking about millions of dollars per side easy.

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 01:41:32 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2016, 01:01:54 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2016, 10:12:39 AM
I am not convinced.  The ability to "just sue someone into bankruptcy" seems limited by the fact that frivolous (what you call "totally unjustified") lawsuits will be dismissed with costs.  If a lawsuit has merit and won't be dismissed, then it seems to me that there isn't a problem with appellants proceeding with it.

"dimissed with costs" implies basic legal costs, not full lawyers fee, no?  Out of 20 million$ expense, how much could you hope to regain by having the suit dismissed, a few thousand dollars?

$20 million in legal expenses? WTF?

that's what they said in the artcile posted.

The judge sent this case to mediation with some strong hints about the virtues of settlement.  One can only speculate about what happened - it might be gawker played hardball and refused to make a decent offer.  But given their exposure probably not.  A common dynamic here is that the plaintiff wants to go to trial on principle, but the mediator impresses upon him the risks and the costs of trial.  But if a mystery benefactor agrees to take all that cost/risk away, it changes the dynamic a lot.

Again this differs from traditional litigation finance, where risks are shared not eliminated.

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 01:41:32 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2016, 01:01:54 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2016, 10:12:39 AM
I am not convinced.  The ability to "just sue someone into bankruptcy" seems limited by the fact that frivolous (what you call "totally unjustified") lawsuits will be dismissed with costs.  If a lawsuit has merit and won't be dismissed, then it seems to me that there isn't a problem with appellants proceeding with it.

"dimissed with costs" implies basic legal costs, not full lawyers fee, no?  Out of 20 million$ expense, how much could you hope to regain by having the suit dismissed, a few thousand dollars?

$20 million in legal expenses? WTF?

In big litigation going for several years it's not unheard of.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2016, 02:43:35 PM
but the mediator impresses upon him the risks and the costs of trial. 

yeah.  They stop short at telling you a judge will not look kindly at you for refusing the mediation offer, because they are not allowed to do such a thing, and they would never talk to a fellow judge about how these negotiations went, but you get the clear feeling of what will happen if you refuse to settle there and your lawyer explicitely tells you judges will not balk at sharing such info with their comrades while in the bathroom.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2016, 02:43:35 PM
Again this differs from traditional litigation finance, where risks are shared not eliminated.

Did the plaintiffs in the well known civil rights cases share in the risks?  I always assumed it was all on third parties.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2016, 02:36:16 PM
It's more of a net negative because there's a public interest in a free media that isn't necessarily afraid of the rich. It's something we all benefit from.

But there is also a public interest that the rich can't intimidate other types of businesses into getting out of their way.

What is of note here is that while Gawker is by all accounts scummy and deserving of punishment, the award in this case of $140m is absurd. That is not in relation to the negative consequences of having a sex tape published.

If you have a jackpot justice legal system with wildly unpredictable juries, if you piss off someone with means, a serious enough grudge, and a mentality like Peter Thiel, you have a major problem. If you are a business owner, it isn't irrational to worry that some case with potential against your company will eventually come up, and you could lose everything. Better to steer clear of crossing the guy--be it in the media or anything else (including possibly competing against his business interests, developing his hometown in a way he disapproves of, etc).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2016, 03:18:57 PM
Did the plaintiffs in the well known civil rights cases share in the risks?  I always assumed it was all on third parties.

Yes but those landmark cases tended to be against state organs asserting constitutional rights, not money from private parties - that was the Supreme Court's distinction in NAACP v. Button.

In this case, gawker is an entity that deliberately destroys people's lives and then makes money off of the publicity. If a government entity does that, then it's probably just a side effect of the real intent. Or wholly accidental.

I am kind of torn on this.

On the one hand, at the basic level, Minsky is right. You can't have non-transparent entities engaging in the legal system to exact revenge. The system requires some basic level of disclosure about motivations and means of the players involved.

On the other hand, Gawker is one of those abhorrent entities that is using that very system's tolerance against it to engage in activities that are, IMO, clearly detrimental and harmful to society in general.

So on that note, fuck them. They *should* be looking over their shoulder at the people they completely screw over, and their ability to strike back within the system. They are being attacked by someone using the system to shield them, it seems like turnabout is fair play.

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 03:44:37 PM
I am kind of torn on this.

On the one hand, at the basic level, Minsky is right. You can't have non-transparent entities engaging in the legal system to exact revenge. The system requires some basic level of disclosure about motivations and means of the players involved.

On the other hand, Gawker is one of those abhorrent entities that is using that very system's tolerance against it to engage in activities that are, IMO, clearly detrimental and harmful to society in general.

So on that note, fuck them. They *should* be looking over their shoulder at the people they completely screw over, and their ability to strike back within the system. They are being attacked by someone using the system to shield them, it seems like turnabout is fair play.

True, Gawker is horrible - but isn't it often the case that protection of freedom of the press often involves horrible businesses or people?

Larry Flynt springs to mind.  ;)

All of our press is horrible now. Even places like CNN are filled with clickbait and all about creating and riding the outrage cycle.

Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2016, 03:51:35 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 03:44:37 PM
I am kind of torn on this.

On the one hand, at the basic level, Minsky is right. You can't have non-transparent entities engaging in the legal system to exact revenge. The system requires some basic level of disclosure about motivations and means of the players involved.

On the other hand, Gawker is one of those abhorrent entities that is using that very system's tolerance against it to engage in activities that are, IMO, clearly detrimental and harmful to society in general.

So on that note, fuck them. They *should* be looking over their shoulder at the people they completely screw over, and their ability to strike back within the system. They are being attacked by someone using the system to shield them, it seems like turnabout is fair play.

True, Gawker is horrible - but isn't it often the case that protection of freedom of the press often involves horrible businesses or people?

Larry Flynt springs to mind.  ;)

But we are not talking about freedom of the press in the sense that the government is impinging on their rights to say what they like, we are talking about whether or not private individuals have the right to take action against them, or rather to what extent private individuals have the right to take action against them.

If this was the government going after them for saying something terrible about the government, I would have a very different opinion.

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 04:11:05 PM
But we are not talking about freedom of the press in the sense that the government is impinging on their rights to say what they like, we are talking about whether or not private individuals have the right to take action against them, or rather to what extent private individuals have the right to take action against them.

That WAS the Flynt case - it was a private lawsuit for damages by Falwell over something that Flynt printed that was a grotesque falsehood and extremely insulting.  (By way of comparison what gawker published was accurate and arguably newsworthy)

Malthus' point is that the integrity speech protections is often going to depend on the defense of the scummier elements of the media because it is revulsion against the scumbags that can drive precedent that has wider application.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 31, 2016, 03:35:34 PMBut there is also a public interest that the rich can't intimidate other types of businesses into getting out of their way.

...

If you have a jackpot justice legal system with wildly unpredictable juries, if you piss off someone with means, a serious enough grudge, and a mentality like Peter Thiel, you have a major problem. If you are a business owner, it isn't irrational to worry that some case with potential against your company will eventually come up, and you could lose everything. Better to steer clear of crossing the guy--be it in the media or anything else (including possibly competing against his business interests, developing his hometown in a way he disapproves of, etc).

Yeah. There's a public interest in the rich not intimidating businesses, there's an additional public interest in the media being able to freely circulate information including crossing rich psychos. I think it's an extra level of pernicious and dangerous.

If the wealthy are able to stop a development that might kind of suck and it's a bad thing. If they're able to stop people reporting on them, that's actively harmful.

Having said that I agree with everyone that Gawker really is awful. Plus I'm not full Euro on this but I do think there's a right to privacy with things like sex tapes. But....

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2016, 04:29:51 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 04:11:05 PM
But we are not talking about freedom of the press in the sense that the government is impinging on their rights to say what they like, we are talking about whether or not private individuals have the right to take action against them, or rather to what extent private individuals have the right to take action against them.

That WAS the Flynt case - it was a private lawsuit for damages by Falwell over something that Flynt printed that was a grotesque falsehood and extremely insulting.  (By way of comparison what gawker published was accurate and arguably newsworthy)

Malthus' point is that the integrity speech protections is often going to depend on the defense of the scummier elements of the media because it is revulsion against the scumbags that can drive precedent that has wider application.

Yup.

Here's a wiki on the Flynt case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Hustler's thing was a parody of Falwell and did in no way publicize any of Falwell's private documents or information. All they did was tell lies about him. Gawker's is an invasion of privacy in a way that Hustler never was.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 31, 2016, 05:13:03 PM
Hustler's thing was a parody of Falwell and did in no way publicize any of Falwell's private documents or information. All they did was tell lies about him. Gawker's is an invasion of privacy in a way that Hustler never was.

I'm not saying that the details of the two cases are exactly the same, I'm saying that the fact that a scumbag is being sued may raise quite legitimate freedom of the press issues - regardless of what a dire scumbag the defendant is (or even, in some cases, how very guilty he happens to be in any particular case).

This Gawker thing raises concerns, because as horrible as Gawker undoubtedly is, and as guilty as it may be in invading privacy, the fact that the litigation was bankrolled by a billionaire with a grudge that arose because Gawker published stuff about him he did not like (but could not sue about because it was true) raises concerns.

Given several facts (the US uses jury trials, who regularly award massive damages; there are usually no loser-pays costs rules; and now, apparently, no rules against billionaires bankrolling cases they have no actual interest in because they have a grudge against a media provider for publishing true stuff about them), the "litigation risk" in publishing true stuff about the wealthy is just that much higher.

This is a legitimate concern, I think, about the freedom of the press - that it can be constrained by fear of litigation risk. The fear is that others may be inspired to threaten to do the same - 'if you publish true but bad stuff about me, you better make no mistakes in the future, because I'll bankroll every person with a grudge that seems like it could raise a cause of action, and sue you into oblivion'.

Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2016, 03:51:35 PM
True, Gawker is horrible - but isn't it often the case that protection of freedom of the press often involves horrible businesses or people?

Larry Flynt springs to mind.  ;)

If this was a freedom of the press issue, then freedom of the press arguments might apply.  No one is claiming that the government took down Gawker because it disapproved of Gawker's  content.  Gawker lost the lawsuit because it acted abhorrently and was not deeper-pocketed than the appellent and so the case went to trial.

Now, you could make the case for disclosure of the financial interests of those involved in a lawsuit, but Thiel had no financial interests in this case.  He was just "helping a buddy."

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 31, 2016, 05:13:03 PM
Hustler's thing was a parody of Falwell and did in no way publicize any of Falwell's private documents or information. All they did was tell lies about him. Gawker's is an invasion of privacy in a way that Hustler never was.

True, but another way to see it is that unlike Flynt gawker published true and accurate information about a matter of legitimate public interest.  Keep in mind that both courts to address the issue held that the tape addressed matters of public concern, rejecting Bollea's arguments to the contrary.  So it raises the question when does legitimate news inquiry become so intrusive such that privacy concerns trump the right to publish?  Should Gary Hart be able sue the Miami Herald for stalking him?

Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2016, 05:42:23 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2016, 03:51:35 PM
True, Gawker is horrible - but isn't it often the case that protection of freedom of the press often involves horrible businesses or people?

Larry Flynt springs to mind.  ;)

If this was a freedom of the press issue, then freedom of the press arguments might apply.  No one is claiming that the government took down Gawker because it disapproved of Gawker's  content.  Gawker lost the lawsuit because it acted abhorrently and was not deeper-pocketed than the appellent and so the case went to trial.

Now, you could make the case for disclosure of the financial interests of those involved in a lawsuit, but Thiel had no financial interests in this case.  He was just "helping a buddy."

The analogy was with the Falwell vs. Flynt case, which was likewise not about the government attempting to shut down Hustler - yet nonetheless raised freedom of the press issues.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2016, 05:42:27 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 31, 2016, 05:13:03 PM
Hustler's thing was a parody of Falwell and did in no way publicize any of Falwell's private documents or information. All they did was tell lies about him. Gawker's is an invasion of privacy in a way that Hustler never was.

True, but another way to see it is that unlike Flynt gawker published true and accurate information about a matter of legitimate public interest.  Keep in mind that both courts to address the issue held that the tape addressed matters of public concern, rejecting Bollea's arguments to the contrary.  So it raises the question when does legitimate news inquiry become so intrusive such that privacy concerns trump the right to publish?  Should Gary Hart be able sue the Miami Herald for stalking him?

How is a Hulk Hogan sex tap a legitimate matter of public interest?

Gary Hart was running for the president and dared the media to find some dirt on him. The two situations are wildly different.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2016, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 31, 2016, 12:20:01 AM
There's no way to ban this kind of legal bankrolling without gutting the ACLU, NAACP, etc.

Technically not true - the Supreme Court case that addressed this issue, NAACP v. Button, held that advocacy by the NAACP (and thus organizations like that) was effectively political expression; thus "in the context of NAACP objectives, litigation is not a technique of resolving private differences."  The Court left open enforcement of traditional common law prohibitions where private gain as opposed to public interest was at stake, or where malicious intent was involved.  There are some states that still have such prohibitions in place; others have gotten rid of them, either directly or by allowing the common law doctrines to fall in abeyance.

Litigation funding services can also be distinguished from the gawker situation because the funder reviews cases on merits, and typically signs a formal agreement setting forth the responsibilities and obligations of the parties so that potential conflicts of interest can be assessed and policed

naacp v. button's "political expression" is essentially no different than this case. the reason SCOTUS favored naacp wasn't due to "political expression," but rather that litigation = an expression, and this country defends the liberty of people to express themselves, etc. i.e., had naacp had a thiel-like reason, I'm pretty positive SCOTUS would have ruled the same way

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2016, 04:29:51 PM

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 04:11:05 PM
But we are not talking about freedom of the press in the sense that the government is impinging on their rights to say what they like, we are talking about whether or not private individuals have the right to take action against them, or rather to what extent private individuals have the right to take action against them.

That WAS the Flynt case - it was a private lawsuit for damages by Falwell over something that Flynt printed that was a grotesque falsehood and extremely insulting.  (By way of comparison what gawker published was accurate and arguably newsworthy)

Falwell sued Flint for libel, and it was tossed because Falwell was a public figure and the slander in question was in the form of a comic, and parody is not grounds for libel, true or not. It was not thrown out under Flynts freedom of the press, but rather because parody doesn't meet the standards for libel.

Quote
Malthus' point is that the integrity speech protections is often going to depend on the defense of the scummier elements of the media because it is revulsion against the scumbags that can drive precedent that has wider application.

True, except that there isn't any wider precedent being set here - it has always been the case that a media organization can be sued on the merits similar to this one. There is no new legal precedent here that I can tell.

Was the problem in the way Gawker acquired the fuck tape?

Not that I am aware of - the deciding issue is whether the jury was convinced (or not) that the tapes were "newsworthy". Clearly, they did not feel that they were.

Gawker stating as a matter of trial record that they felt that sex tapes that included celebrities minor children "as long as they were older than 4" were fair game as well and similarly "newsworthy" probably didn't help their case with the jury.

I don't see this as a fundamentally problematic case - there is always a balance between rights, and Gollea has a right to privacy that has to be weighed against the right of hacks to publish bullshit to make a dime of other peoples pain. Or that freedom of the press thing. :P

Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2016, 05:58:27 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2016, 05:42:23 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2016, 03:51:35 PM
True, Gawker is horrible - but isn't it often the case that protection of freedom of the press often involves horrible businesses or people?

Larry Flynt springs to mind.  ;)

If this was a freedom of the press issue, then freedom of the press arguments might apply.  No one is claiming that the government took down Gawker because it disapproved of Gawker's  content.  Gawker lost the lawsuit because it acted abhorrently and was not deeper-pocketed than the appellent and so the case went to trial.

Now, you could make the case for disclosure of the financial interests of those involved in a lawsuit, but Thiel had no financial interests in this case.  He was just "helping a buddy."

The analogy was with the Falwell vs. Flynt case, which was likewise not about the government attempting to shut down Hustler - yet nonetheless raised freedom of the press issues.

Not to be pedantic, but if something is done through the court system, it doesn't seem too outlandish to attribute some credit to the government. The judiciary is one of the three branches of government, after all.

 :hmm:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 31, 2016, 06:50:53 PM
How is a Hulk Hogan sex tap a legitimate matter of public interest?

You can read the reasoning of the Florida appeals court on this issue, when they reversed the trial court injunction pre-trial

http://law.justia.com/cases/florida/second-district-court-of-appeal/2014/2d13-1951.html

Interesting in light of the fact this same court will hear gawker's appeal.

Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2016, 07:36:07 PM
Not that I am aware of - the deciding issue is whether the jury was convinced (or not) that the tapes were "newsworthy". Clearly, they did not feel that they were.

I suspect that finding (and the accompanying jury instructions) on that issue will be carefully scrutinized as both the state and federal courts that considered the issue pre-trial came to a different conclusion.

I don't see how media businesses are more important to protect than healthcare, energy production, sanitation, or what have you. I can live without media.

Reporting the tapes existence might be news worthy, but didn't they actual provide the tape to the public? Hard to claim that's kosher.

Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2016, 05:58:27 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2016, 05:42:23 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2016, 03:51:35 PM
True, Gawker is horrible - but isn't it often the case that protection of freedom of the press often involves horrible businesses or people?

Larry Flynt springs to mind.  ;)

If this was a freedom of the press issue, then freedom of the press arguments might apply.  No one is claiming that the government took down Gawker because it disapproved of Gawker's  content.  Gawker lost the lawsuit because it acted abhorrently and was not deeper-pocketed than the appellent and so the case went to trial.

Now, you could make the case for disclosure of the financial interests of those involved in a lawsuit, but Thiel had no financial interests in this case.  He was just "helping a buddy."

The analogy was with the Falwell vs. Flynt case, which was likewise not about the government attempting to shut down Hustler - yet nonetheless raised freedom of the press issues.

Flynt claimed it raised freedom of the press issues, but that doesn't make it so.

I don't think there was any freedom of the press issue in either case, really. The Flynt case was about libel, and whether or not parody was a valid exception to the libel laws - prior to Flynt is was kind of sort of assumed that it was, after Flynt it was definitely clear that it was such an exception.

This case is about whether or not private information not intended for public consumption about a public figure is always, never, sometimes a valid thing to publish. The answer, legally, is that it is sometimes - there is no hard and fast rule that says one way or the other, and it will come down to a jury deciding if the newsworthiness of the article outweighs the individual right to privacy. That is obviously going to vary on a lot of factors, and I am perfectly fine with that, and do in fact think media organizations should carefully weigh those factors when they decide to publish.

In fact, I think media organization should weigh those factors carefully as a matter of being responsible societal citizens with an important job. To the extent that we have laws to protect them, it is based on the idea that when they do in fact exercise such careful consideration, we should provide them with the default that it ought to be hard to then hold them financially at risk for those decisions.

Gawker takes that and turns it on its head - it uses our reluctance to hold responsible media to task as a way to be totally irresponsible and just publish any little titillating bullshit that might score them some money from a lowest common denominator public. So fuck them. I have no issue at all with a jury of my peers looking at the evidence, and deciding that they didn't exercise even the most basic amount of journalistic integrity, and nailing them with sever penalties.

Do I think this is going to give CNN pause? Well, I hope CNN already would never publish some private sex tape of some minor celebrity, since any even remotely responsible journalist knows that there is zero actual news there beyond the most sordid kind. If CNN is ever in that business (and sadly it does seem like more and more otherwise "respectable" news organizations are sliding down that path) then I hope that awards like this DO in fact act as a check on their most base instincts - that is in fact the very purpose of such punitive results.

I would like it a lot more if journalists policed themselves in a manner that made it so this kind of stuff doesn't have to go to a jury. But I recognize that isn't possible - there will always be tabloid journalism that operates under the fig leaf of "freedom of the press" to abrogate their responsibility to be actual journalists. So I am glad that there is some kind of potential check to the tabloid "journalists", even if that check is rather blunt and unwieldy.

Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2016, 10:55:57 AM

Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2016, 05:58:27 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2016, 05:42:23 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2016, 03:51:35 PM
True, Gawker is horrible - but isn't it often the case that protection of freedom of the press often involves horrible businesses or people?

Larry Flynt springs to mind.  ;)

If this was a freedom of the press issue, then freedom of the press arguments might apply.  No one is claiming that the government took down Gawker because it disapproved of Gawker's  content.  Gawker lost the lawsuit because it acted abhorrently and was not deeper-pocketed than the appellent and so the case went to trial.

Now, you could make the case for disclosure of the financial interests of those involved in a lawsuit, but Thiel had no financial interests in this case.  He was just "helping a buddy."

The analogy was with the Falwell vs. Flynt case, which was likewise not about the government attempting to shut down Hustler - yet nonetheless raised freedom of the press issues.

Flynt claimed it raised freedom of the press issues, but that doesn't make it so.

I don't think there was any freedom of the press issue in either case, really. The Flynt case was about libel, and whether or not parody was a valid exception to the libel laws - prior to Flynt is was kind of sort of assumed that it was, after Flynt it was definitely clear that it was such an exception.

This case is about whether or not private information not intended for public consumption about a public figure is always, never, sometimes a valid thing to publish. The answer, legally, is that it is sometimes - there is no hard and fast rule that says one way or the other, and it will come down to a jury deciding if the newsworthiness of the article outweighs the individual right to privacy. That is obviously going to vary on a lot of factors, and I am perfectly fine with that, and do in fact think media organizations should carefully weigh those factors when they decide to publish.

In fact, I think media organization should weigh those factors carefully as a matter of being responsible societal citizens with an important job. To the extent that we have laws to protect them, it is based on the idea that when they do in fact exercise such careful consideration, we should provide them with the default that it ought to be hard to then hold them financially at risk for those decisions.

Gawker takes that and turns it on its head - it uses our reluctance to hold responsible media to task as a way to be totally irresponsible and just publish any little titillating bullshit that might score them some money from a lowest common denominator public. So fuck them. I have no issue at all with a jury of my peers looking at the evidence, and deciding that they didn't exercise even the most basic amount of journalistic integrity, and nailing them with sever penalties.

Do I think this is going to give CNN pause? Well, I hope CNN already would never publish some private sex tape of some minor celebrity, since any even remotely responsible journalist knows that there is zero actual news there beyond the most sordid kind. If CNN is ever in that business (and sadly it does seem like more and more otherwise "respectable" news organizations are sliding down that path) then I hope that awards like this DO in fact act as a check on their most base instincts - that is in fact the very purpose of such punitive results.

I would like it a lot more if journalists policed themselves in a manner that made it so this kind of stuff doesn't have to go to a jury. But I recognize that isn't possible - there will always be tabloid journalism that operates under the fig leaf of "freedom of the press" to abrogate their responsibility to be actual journalists. So I am glad that there is some kind of potential check to the tabloid "journalists", even if that check is rather blunt and unwieldy.

The Flynt case was decided on the basis of the First Amendment; not sure whether it makes any difference if the particular freedom was "freedom of the press" or "freedom of speech". In either event, the issue is the same: sometimes protecting civil liberties, as enacted in the US by stuff like the First Amendment, involves, unfortunately, upholding the rights of horrible people to do horrible things we, personally, strongly disapprove of.

Not that such rights ought never to be limited. All rights have limits, though they are expressed in different ways in different legal systems. Point is that we should not lose sight of the impact on the system of rights of particular decisions, merely because we think some of the actors in this specific little drama are really gross.  And I agree that Gawker is gross.

Quote from: Malthus on June 01, 2016, 11:23:11 AMAnd I agree that Gawker is gross.

Aye. It's as if revenge porn and cancer somehow had a butt baby and it was Gawker. The celeb stuff isn't even their worst, they'd regularly ruin nobodies, just college kids for clicks.

That the Hogan tapes were sex tapes is not what was so damaging about them. What was damaging about them is that he said racist things. That is what destroyed Hogan's career.

I looked at some of the court opinions and briefing last night.  My suspicion is that gawker has a real appeal issue here.  The trial judge was already reversed a couple of times on preliminary rulings.  As I indicated before the appeals court previously found the publication of the tape likely to satisfy the newsworthy standard at an earlier stage of the case, based in part on the fact that Hogan engaged in a bizarre publicity campaign where went on various media outlets to boast at some length about his sexual exploits, his penis, and this particular sexual encounter.  There is also prior precedent for 1st amendment protection for this kind of material, including the Tommy-Pamela Lee case back in the 90s.  Looking at the trial court briefing, Bollea's defense of the jury verdict appears to center around the "but gawker are scumbags" theory - i.e. they say that the testimony of the gawker guy who posted the story proves he was motivated by a desire to appeal to prurience.  But that may be irrelevant - the law isn't entirely clear about whether the public interest standard is objective or subjective but gawker's has a pretty decent argument subjective intent is irrelevant.

Looks like there may also be an appeal issue over the exclusion (and improper sealing) of potential impeachment evidence but that is a separate issue.

If this is over-turned, I am fine with that as well - the issue is whether or not the risk of such a lawsuit ought to exist to begin with - the actual legal arguments around whether Hogan has a case or not is not that interesting to me, and could be decided either way. My position is not really driven by whether or not his case should or should not be won, but whether or not his ability to bring such a case is problematic itself.

Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2016, 12:27:16 PM
but whether or not his ability to bring such a case is problematic itself.

2 problems here, I think I see.

One, a billionaire can sue for anything he wants to force others to pay legal fees until they are broke.  This is an abuse.
Two, someone who believe has a legitimate claim is unable to pay by himself the required legal fees to have justice rendered.

Now, #2, knowing that in such cases, if you have a remotely solid case the lawyer takes a percentage of the share to cover its fees, it should not be a problem, anyone who is a victim of a Gawker-like media can sue, claim damages and reimburse damages so long as he/she can prove there were damages done.

So we're back to #1.  A billionaire abusing his position due to his wealth.  It may be revenge. It may be a financial strategy to buyback Gawker.  It may be something else, it may even be genuined concern.  But should an individual be allowed to pay the legal fees for another individual in a not so remarquable case when there are other mechanisms to compensate the alleged victim?

I don't think so.  I think it's a real thread to freedom of speech, and as I don't know Gawker, I'll trust you all when you say they are scums, but if we don't defend the scumbags, why bother with defending anyone?  Freedom of speech/press is not there to protect consensual speech that gets the approval of 90%+ of the population.  Everyone is allowed to say how much they love Obama, or how much Donald Trump is a really nice guy. 

But the day someone calls Donald Trump on his lies and he starts sueing them and pushing others to sue by financing their causes until the liberal media he despises are shut down, won't it be too late to act?

The better question here is not about Donald Trump or Obama - it is about you and me.

Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy". Their definition of newsworthy is clearly anything that will get them clicks.

That is the question as I see it - is there any line at all, or is any organization that calls itself "media" free to publish *anything* they can get their hands on under the guise of "news"?

Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2016, 02:29:48 PM
Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy".

But that isn't this case.  Hogan was a celebrity, the sex tape was news before it was published by gawker and Hogan himself went on radio shows to boast about it.  That's a little different from just publishing some random citizen's tape.

So you think this court got OJed Joan?

Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2016, 02:29:48 PM
The better question here is not about Donald Trump or Obama - it is about you and me.

Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy". Their definition of newsworthy is clearly anything that will get them clicks.

That is the question as I see it - is there any line at all, or is any organization that calls itself "media" free to publish *anything* they can get their hands on under the guise of "news"?

As Joan explained the case, Hogan publicly boasted about the tape and its content.

I say, if I shoot a sex tape, then tell everyone I shot a sex tape with, let's say a random yet attractive, but publicly unknown woman, I boast about my sexual performance and make racial slur on this tape, I think it's a really grey area, because neither participant are public figures.  Maybe people would pay to see your sex tape, but I doubt they'd pay to see mine :P

I think at this point, it becomes a public matter, since I talked about it publicly.

If I shoot such a tape with my girlfriend, don't talk to anyone about it, a hacker take it from my computer and sell it to a newsmedia that would want it (there's likely to be a fetish for fat guys too :D ), then it's an intrusion of privacy from the hacker and any newsmedia publishing this should be liable for damages.

It's the same with stuff like the Fappenning.  Actresses get their private pictures stolen from their phone or iCloud account = crime.  Actresses get nude on a public beach, get photographed = not a crime.  Said actresses walk into a gala with a tansparent robe = not a crime when the pictures are everywhere.

See, if I walk naked in my home with the blinders and the lights open, it's not a crime if a passing neighbour manages to see me naked.
However, if someone climbs the balcony, or if the closest neighbour use a telescope to picture me naked, than that's definately a crime.
Masturbating myself in my home is not a crime. Doing it by the side of a river while the neighbour is walking her dog in the morning = crime.

The moment you do or talk about something in public, the reasonable expectations of privacy anyone might have disapears, imho.

Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2016, 02:29:48 PM
The better question here is not about Donald Trump or Obama - it is about you and me.

Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy". Their definition of newsworthy is clearly anything that will get them clicks.

That is the question as I see it - is there any line at all, or is any organization that calls itself "media" free to publish *anything* they can get their hands on under the guise of "news"?

I think that line has been set - by another Gawker lawsuit.

I had to do some googling to remember all the details.  Last year Gawker linked to a story about one David Geithner having sex with a gay escort.  Who is David Geithner?  He's the CFO of Conde Nast and brother to Tim Geithner.  Essentially he was no one.

Gawker was immediately shamed in social media and took down the story within a day.

I'm not certain if Geithner sued Gawker, but everyone seemed to feel he had grounds to.

Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2016, 03:07:50 PM
Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

And apparently there is good science to suggest the more older brothers you have, the greater your chance of being gay is.  Which caught my attention as the father of three boys.

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2016, 03:09:48 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2016, 03:07:50 PM
Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

And apparently there is good science to suggest the more older brothers you have, the greater your chance of being gay is.  Which caught my attention as the father of three boys.

Sons are 1) not your brothers and 2) rarely older than you. I think you're safe.

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2016, 03:09:48 PM
Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

Not married, pinged my gaydar.

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2016, 03:09:48 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2016, 03:07:50 PM
Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

And apparently there is good science to suggest the more older brothers you have, the greater your chance of being gay is.  Which caught my attention as the father of three boys.

I only have three older half-sisters. So don't sweat it. :P

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2016, 03:04:15 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2016, 02:29:48 PM
The better question here is not about Donald Trump or Obama - it is about you and me.

Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy". Their definition of newsworthy is clearly anything that will get them clicks.

That is the question as I see it - is there any line at all, or is any organization that calls itself "media" free to publish *anything* they can get their hands on under the guise of "news"?

I think that line has been set - by another Gawker lawsuit.

I had to do some googling to remember all the details.  Last year Gawker linked to a story about one David Geithner having sex with a gay escort.  Who is David Geithner?  He's the CFO of Conde Nast and brother to Tim Geithner.  Essentially he was no one.

Gawker was immediately shamed in social media and took down the story within a day.

I'm not certain if Geithner sued Gawker, but everyone seemed to feel he had grounds to.

Yeah, that was shameful. I have absolutely no problem seeing Gawker going down in flames.

Quote from: The Brain on June 01, 2016, 10:32:32 AM
I don't see how media businesses are more important to protect than healthcare, energy production, sanitation, or what have you. I can live without media.

Yeah, no kidding. Jacob probably supports Gawker only because there is some non-white lesbian feminist involved. Like he did when he supported the evil side on the gamergate.

See you tomorrow or whenever I can be bothered. For the record, I don't normally read your posts but now that I've finally gotten around to figure out how to ban people - if I do accidentally read one of your posts and it reaches this bar of douchiness and deliberate misrepresentation, I'll ban you. Repeatedly. Consider this a warning. - Jacob

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2016, 02:48:26 PM
So you think this court got OJed Joan?

Let's just say there's enough smoke here to suggest the possibility of fire.

Including:
1. Key decisions favoring the plaintiff issued with opinion or explanation
2. Two of them reversed by the appeals court without much ceremony
3.  Press reports that she is the most reversed judge on that court.
4.  Apparently the key qualification that got her appointed to the bench was representing Terry schiavo's parents.

Quote from: viper37 on June 01, 2016, 02:58:05 PM

As Joan explained the case, Hogan publicly boasted about the tape and its content.

I say, if I shoot a sex tape, then tell everyone I shot a sex tape with, let's say a random yet attractive, but publicly unknown woman, I boast about my sexual performance and make racial slur on this tape, I think it's a really grey area, because neither participant are public figures.  Maybe people would pay to see your sex tape, but I doubt they'd pay to see mine :P

I think at this point, it becomes a public matter, since I talked about it publicly.

If I shoot such a tape with my girlfriend, don't talk to anyone about it, a hacker take it from my computer and sell it to a newsmedia that would want it (there's likely to be a fetish for fat guys too :D ), then it's an intrusion of privacy from the hacker and any newsmedia publishing this should be liable for damages.

It's the same with stuff like the Fappenning.  Actresses get their private pictures stolen from their phone or iCloud account = crime.  Actresses get nude on a public beach, get photographed = not a crime.  Said actresses walk into a gala with a tansparent robe = not a crime when the pictures are everywhere.

See, if I walk naked in my home with the blinders and the lights open, it's not a crime if a passing neighbour manages to see me naked.
However, if someone climbs the balcony, or if the closest neighbour use a telescope to picture me naked, than that's definately a crime.
Masturbating myself in my home is not a crime. Doing it by the side of a river while the neighbour is walking her dog in the morning = crime.

The moment you do or talk about something in public, the reasonable expectations of privacy anyone might have disapears, imho.

So if one of the actresses, when asked, had previously said that she had naked pictures on her phone and she thought they were pretty hot, that would make the fappening cool, at least for her?

Quote from: Martinus on June 01, 2016, 03:14:08 PM
Yeah, that was shameful. I have absolutely no problem seeing Gawker going down in flames.

OK

But even a lawyer trained in the horrific monstronsity of the Roman civil law tradition can recognize that "they got what was coming to them" is not an ideal way to decide issues of law. 

:)

Quote from: Martinus on June 01, 2016, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2016, 03:09:48 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2016, 03:07:50 PM
Two gay brothers?  What are the odds?

Tim Geithner is gay?  I wasn't aware of that.

And apparently there is good science to suggest the more older brothers you have, the greater your chance of being gay is.  Which caught my attention as the father of three boys.

I only have three older half-sisters. So don't sweat it. :P

I was careful with saying "caught my attention" rather than "worried me".  If one (or all) of my boys are gay so be it - I'll still love them the same.

And "greater your chance" is hardly a certainty.  My gay nephew is the oldest of three kids.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2016, 03:29:04 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 01, 2016, 03:14:08 PM
Yeah, that was shameful. I have absolutely no problem seeing Gawker going down in flames.

OK

But even a lawyer trained in the horrific monstronsity of the Roman civil law tradition can recognize that "they got what was coming to them" is not an ideal way to decide issues of law. 

:)

And even a lawyer trained in the beauty and light of the english common law must recognize that taking pleasure in someone "getting what was coming to them" has nothing to do with the law.

:)

Quote from: alfred russel on June 01, 2016, 03:27:26 PM
So if one of the actresses, when asked, had previously said that she had naked pictures on her phone and she thought they were pretty hot, that would make the fappening cool, at least for her?

If she asks her friend to take naked pictures of her while he tells her they will be posted online, she's kinda waiving her expectations to privacy here.  When she goes to a talk show, says her friend took naked pictures of her and posted them online, I just think she shouldn't be surprised that some website will post some of these pictures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan#Gawker_lawsuit

In the case of the iCloud privacy leaks, afaik, none of the actresses publicly boasted about these pictures and their hot naked bodies, none of these pictures were taken in public spot, so it kinda really is an invasion of privacy.  And we all know that as upstanding citizens, no one on this forum would ever dared to have taken a look at some of these young women's pictures...

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2016, 02:46:39 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2016, 02:29:48 PM
Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy".

But that isn't this case.  Hogan was a celebrity, the sex tape was news before it was published by gawker and Hogan himself went on radio shows to boast about it.  That's a little different from just publishing some random citizen's tape.

I'll grant that it is a *little* different - but the standard that seems to be promoted here is that basically anything is newsworthy as long as gawker says so, and it is pretty clear from their actions that they don't give two shits about whether something is actually newsworthy, they just want clicks and money. I don't think they sit around and have some sober analysis, and came down on the side of "newsworthy" to share a video of Hogan banging some chick. I think they had it, thought "Hey, this will make us some money!" and posted away thinking they could get away with it.

So I am fine with a jury of my peers deciding that they crossed the line and nailing them. I am fine with them finding that they didn't , but the process at least puts the fear of it into them.

I am not fine with the idea that even the threat of being sued should be removed, so that the gawkers of the world don't have to worry about what is or is not newsworthy - because I don't believe they actually care at all, except to the extent that they might get in trouble of some kind.

That fear of legal action is a shitty, blunt tool. But it is certainly the only thing constraining those kinds of actors.

Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2016, 02:12:06 AM
I think they had it, thought "Hey, this will make us some money!" and posted away thinking they could get away with it.

Well, it was published online before Gawker.  It's not like they went and stole the tape.

Quote
That fear of legal action is a shitty, blunt tool. But it is certainly the only thing constraining those kinds of actors.

If you risk getting sued anytime you publish something, newsworthy or not, about a public figure, it's bad for democracy.
If the New York Times risk getting sued for publishing a story about Donald Trump's use of fiscal paradise, and they know that if they do so, every time they publish a news about some political or public figure they are going to get sued, they are likely to stop publishing anything.

Focusing on Gawker and defending the process because they are apparently assholes is misleading, I think.  The debate is much larger than Gawker vs Hogan.

I think you are only looking at one side of the coin.

If you *don't* risk getting sued when publish private information about individuals, ever, then that is bad for personal privacy rights.

As in all things, there must be a balance. No rights are absolute, even if the media wants *their* rights to be absolute under the fig leaf of "protecting democracy", but under the reality of "we want to make a buck".

Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2016, 09:15:22 AMFocusing on Gawker and defending the process because they are apparently assholes is misleading, I think.  The debate is much larger than Gawker vs Hogan.

I agree. It's about porno voyeurism using free speech as a figleaf to cause asymmetric destruction to defenceless innocents for clicks and profits while at the same time spouting hypocritical nonsense.

Somebody should put up a cash bounty for clips of Nick Denton going to the bathroom or having sex. Force that degenerate to eat his own cooking. 

Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2016, 09:18:42 AM
If you *don't* risk getting sued when publish private information about individuals, ever, then that is bad for personal privacy rights.

Given the large settlements of US civil court cases, I think the system where only the interested party can sue is working appropriately.  If you have a legitimate case, even against the very powerful, a lawyer will take your case and collect his fees on the settlement.

So that risk of *never* getting sued is pretty minimal, near non-existent.  If you go beyond the limits previously established, you will get sanctionned in court.

But in the case currently funded by this billionaire, I don't see anything else than libel against an individual, and it should be up to them to sue if they feel victimized.  In fact, it is a deliberate attempt at forcing Gawker to incur legal costs on dubious lawsuits because he himself did not have an even remotely legitimate case to sue.

Quote
As in all things, there must be a balance. No rights are absolute, even if the media wants *their* rights to be absolute under the fig leaf of "protecting democracy", but under the reality of "we want to make a buck".

I agree, but I don't see how it is relevant here.  No one is denying Hulk Hogan's right to sue if he feels victimized.  But Peter Thiel is not attacked by Gawker here, in fact, he is not attacked in any of the lawsuits he is financing against Gawker, even when they simply report other newsmedia's information.

If revealing the truth about a public figure lands you in trouble because he can use his wealth to sue you into oblivion for any kind of cases not related to him, often of dubious legal value since no lawyer seems to want to them without an upfront payment, than there is a threat to democracy and it goes way beyond Gawker.

If a private individual mistreated by Gawker can not sue because of his relatively unknown status, than it is another problem entirely and it must be adressed seperately.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 02, 2016, 09:22:56 AM
I agree. It's about porno voyeurism using free speech as a figleaf to cause asymmetric destruction to defenceless innocents for clicks and profits while at the same time spouting hypocritical nonsense.

Who's denying Hogan's right to sue?  Why couldn't he sue on his own?  Why did he need Thiel's money to sue for him?

Could it be that the case was not so clear cut in the first place?

Maybe Gawker are real scumbags.  I don't know and I don't even want to read the site to discover by myself, I'll trust you on this.

But I read Joan's statements of the facts, and it does not seem that Mr Hogan is a sweet innocent victim of a terrible predator site in this case.  And if I read about the other people's case, funded by Thiel, it does not seem like it was totally devoid of public interest.  Not the kind of things I'd be bothered to read, but no worst than what any other publication will occasionnaly do in the US.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 02, 2016, 09:22:56 AM
Somebody should put up a cash bounty for clips of Nick Denton going to the bathroom or having sex. Force that degenerate to eat his own cooking.

Instead someone put up a cash bounty for anything that could take down his business.  So a variant on your wish came true.

Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2016, 02:04:40 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 02, 2016, 09:22:56 AM
I agree. It's about porno voyeurism using free speech as a figleaf to cause asymmetric destruction to defenceless innocents for clicks and profits while at the same time spouting hypocritical nonsense.

Who's denying Hogan's right to sue?  Why couldn't he sue on his own?  Why did he need Thiel's money to sue for him?

I think the conversation has moved passed Thiel - just about everyone agrees that his involvement is problematic. I think that is the case anyway.

This is more about the idea that the case has a freedom of the press angle to it - that regardless of the funding for the lawsuit, should Hogan be allowed to sue for something like this - let's pretend for the moment that he funded the suit himself.

I am arguing against the idea that I think is being put forth that his case has no basis and should not even be allowed to be brought, because the media should not have to fear that someone they piss off can sue them into oblivion.

Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2016, 03:22:01 PM

Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2016, 02:04:40 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 02, 2016, 09:22:56 AM
I agree. It's about porno voyeurism using free speech as a figleaf to cause asymmetric destruction to defenceless innocents for clicks and profits while at the same time spouting hypocritical nonsense.

Who's denying Hogan's right to sue?  Why couldn't he sue on his own?  Why did he need Thiel's money to sue for him?

I think the conversation has moved passed Thiel - just about everyone agrees that his involvement is problematic. I think that is the case anyway.

This is more about the idea that the case has a freedom of the press angle to it - that regardless of the funding for the lawsuit, should Hogan be allowed to sue for something like this - let's pretend for the moment that he funded the suit himself.

I am arguing against the idea that I think is being put forth that his case has no basis and should not even be allowed to be brought, because the media should not have to fear that someone they piss off can sue them into oblivion.

Let me put forward an alternative idea.

What if the problem isn't so much media fearing lawsuits.  They should have a healthy fear of lawsuits.  It's what prevents them from publishing defaming material.

Instead, perhaps the problem is the outrageous damage awards that get handed out in the US?  There's no way in Canada someone would win a nine-figure award for damage to reputation.

The problem isn't that someone can sue gawker.  The problem is that a single lawsuit has the ability to wipe out the entire company because of the enormity of the damages awarded.

Quote from: Berkut on June 02, 2016, 03:22:01 PM

This is more about the idea that the case has a freedom of the press angle to it - that regardless of the funding for the lawsuit, should Hogan be allowed to sue for something like this - let's pretend for the moment that he funded the suit himself.

I am arguing against the idea that I think is being put forth that his case has no basis and should not even be allowed to be brought, because the media should not have to fear that someone they piss off can sue them into oblivion.

Imagine you owned CNN. You probably have hundreds of reporters directly or indirectly in your network, multiple TV stations, and a large website. How can you ensure that somebody doesn't put out a story that is as sketchy as the Hulk Hogan tape? (I recognize that CNN is unlikely to release a sex tape, but there are other types of stories that can result in legal liability) Heck, you could even end up with a disgruntled employee working off a grudge slipping in a defamatory story.

Even CNN probably has a limited tolerance for $140m payouts with $20m in legal fees. It isn't crazy for ownership to pull their reporters back from areas that expose the company to those risks.

As I see it, the problem isn't so much that Hogan sued, or that someone paid for his legal fees, or that Gawker is having to pay money. The problem is that the award is grossly disproportionate to what happened in the case.

Beaten to the punch by BB.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2016, 04:13:56 PM
Instead, perhaps the problem is the outrageous damage awards that get handed out in the US?  There's no way in Canada someone would win a nine-figure award for damage to reputation.

The problem isn't that someone can sue gawker.  The problem is that a single lawsuit has the ability to wipe out the entire company because of the enormity of the damages awarded.

But then that's a discussion barely connected to any of this. That's just a discussion about our jury award system.

Quote from: Berkut on June 01, 2016, 10:55:57 AM
Flynt claimed it raised freedom of the press issues, but that doesn't make it so.

I don't think there was any freedom of the press issue in either case, really. The Flynt case was about libel, and whether or not parody was a valid exception to the libel laws - prior to Flynt is was kind of sort of assumed that it was, after Flynt it was definitely clear that it was such an exception.

The Flynt case was even more specialized/narrow than that.  The jury decision that a caricature of a public person could not be defamation, because it clearly wasn't trying to assert the truth of its allegations.  The controversy in the case turned on whether Falwell could claim damages for emotional distress for an otherwise "legal" caricature.  Eventually, the USSC had to rule on that issue.  It didn't rule on "freedom of the press" per se.

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2016, 04:37:46 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2016, 04:13:56 PM
Instead, perhaps the problem is the outrageous damage awards that get handed out in the US?  There's no way in Canada someone would win a nine-figure award for damage to reputation.

The problem isn't that someone can sue gawker.  The problem is that a single lawsuit has the ability to wipe out the entire company because of the enormity of the damages awarded.

But then that's a discussion barely connected to any of this. That's just a discussion about our jury award system.

Yep.  I made that point in the fourth post on the topic, so we have come full circle.  :lol:

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2016, 04:37:46 PM
But then that's a discussion barely connected to any of this. That's just a discussion about our jury award system.

The novel part of this situation is that someone - someone rich - is wielding the jury award system as a weapon to destroy a business they have taken a disliking to, and that they are close to success and that they're openly admitting to it. The other aspect involved is ease with which many people can agree that Gawker is terrible and ought to be destroyed.

This is perfect timing, as I bone up on the common-law tort of defamation, and how it has been warped by the First Amendment, in preparation for yet another bar exam, since state bars just don't like reciprocating. :bleeding:

Hulk Hogan, unlike fellow pro wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura, is not a public official, but he probably qualifies as a public figure, for the "actual malice" standard, which has already been brought up but I'll give the Bluebook cite for my own good. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). 

The tort of invasion of privacy, specifically public disclosure of private facts, i.e. the widespread dissemination of accurate information that would normally be confidential done in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 

But the First Amendment requires an exception for "newsworthy" information, which has come to encompass virtually anything done by a celebrity, hence the continued existence of tabloids that publish nothing but Gawkeresque information in print, at the checkout stand.

EDIT:  I see the Hulk also sued for IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress), good move to include the "fallback tort."  Defamation is clearly peripheral to this, but invasion of privacy was one of the claims; I don't know about the infringement of personality rights angle.

$55 mil to compensate him, $60 mil for his emotional distress, and another $25 mil in punitive damages.  Wow.  That 6-person Florida jury sure did not like Gawker.  And it's sure an expensive proposition to put the Hulk through emotional distress.

Quote from: Jacob on June 02, 2016, 06:57:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2016, 04:37:46 PM
But then that's a discussion barely connected to any of this. That's just a discussion about our jury award system.

The novel part of this situation is that someone - someone rich - is wielding the jury award system as a weapon to destroy a business they have taken a disliking to, and that they are close to success and that they're openly admitting to it.

is this novel?

ultimately, this case won't change anything. billionaires/millionaires won't be backing victims to achieve personal vendettas against others. maybe a few might here and there, but the majority won't. why? because it looks bad, and, generally, people don't want to look bad. also, the argument that this will chill media reporting is silly--anyone with a blog can report news, and there are enough people who'd love to throw shit back at an obsessed rich guy. media industry has a lot of arrogant, prideful people

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 02, 2016, 07:25:35 PMin preparation for yet another bar exam

same here. haven't started yet or even bought themis  :sleep:

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 02, 2016, 07:25:35 PM
EDIT:  I see the Hulk also sued for IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress), good move to include the "fallback tort."  Defamation is clearly peripheral to this, but invasion of privacy was one of the claims; I don't know about the infringement of personality rights angle.

There's another interesting wrinkle here.  HH also initially sued for negligent infliction for emotional distress, but withdrew that claim before trial.  There is no way to know for certain why he did.  But it had a significant impact that HH's side could anticipate would happen - it removed what would have been a insured claim from the dispute at a time when there was an open insurance coverage dispute between gawker and its liability insurer.

Now why would a plaintiff do something to make it less likely that insurance proceeds would be available to satisfy the judgment?  The answer is no rational plaintiff would: unless the purpose of the suit was not to obtain maximum recoverable compensation but rather to inflict maximum financial plain on the defendant.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2016, 08:07:14 PMNow why would a plaintiff do something to make it less likely that insurance proceeds would be available to satisfy the judgment?  The answer is no rational plaintiff would: unless the purpose of the suit was not to obtain maximum recoverable compensation but rather to inflict maximum financial plain on the defendant.

many plaintiffs, for many reasons, choose strategies that obtain less than maximum recoverable compensation

Never heard of a plaintiff trying to decrease the availability of insurance proceed before   . . .

I'm more responding to the implication there, re: whether HH was following orders from thiel. ultimately, who cares? plaintiffs can do whatever they want that's within the rules of civil procedure/law

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2016, 08:21:07 PM
Never heard of a plaintiff trying to decrease the availability of insurance proceed before   . . .

I'll give you that one - it's pretty much the opposite of what plaintiff's counsel ever does.

Quote from: LaCroix on June 02, 2016, 08:27:28 PM
I'm more responding to the implication there, re: whether HH was following orders from thiel. ultimately, who cares? plaintiffs can do whatever they want that's within the rules of civil procedure/law

Goes to intent.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 02, 2016, 09:31:11 PMGoes to intent.

does the law really care about the intent behind a plaintiff's suit, provided there's some non-frivolous ground to the suit?

It's more whether we as a society care, not whether it's legally permissible.

The state provides civil justice as a public good because there is a perceived social value in providing an effective system to receive redress and compensation for civil wrongs.  That rationale is weakened when the system is used not for the purpose of compensation but to destroy.

Quote from: Jacob on June 02, 2016, 06:57:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2016, 04:37:46 PM
But then that's a discussion barely connected to any of this. That's just a discussion about our jury award system.

The novel part of this situation is that someone - someone rich - is wielding the jury award system as a weapon to destroy a business they have taken a disliking to, and that they are close to success and that they're openly admitting to it. The other aspect involved is ease with which many people can agree that Gawker is terrible and ought to be destroyed.

But isn't the alternative even worse? If you can only finance your own lawsuits, then media outlets like gawker know that the uber rich are untouchable - because they can destroy them - but everyone else is a fair game.

The problem in your scenario is whether a single lawsuit could be used to destroy a business if enough cash is put into it - who bankrolls it is really irrelevant.

Quote from: LaCroix on June 03, 2016, 12:07:51 AM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 02, 2016, 09:31:11 PMGoes to intent.

does the law really care about the intent behind a plaintiff's suit, provided there's some non-frivolous ground to the suit?

I don't know about too many other cases, but at least in antitrust law there is case law supporting the claim that excessively aggressive litigation may amount to abuse of a dominant position when exercised by a dominant business against its competitors.

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2016, 10:08:04 AM
But isn't the alternative even worse? If you can only finance your own lawsuits, then media outlets like gawker know that the uber rich are untouchable - because they can destroy them - but everyone else is a fair game.

I don't have a big problem with private litigation finance but that's why I think the insurance gambit is interesting - because it runs 180 degrees to the contrary of what a real litigation finance outfit would do.  It's the distinction from using "maintenance" to help improve access to the court system for the purposes it was designed for, as opposed to using it to pursue some alternate agenda.

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2016, 10:08:04 AM
But isn't the alternative even worse? If you can only finance your own lawsuits, then media outlets like gawker know that the uber rich are untouchable - because they can destroy them - but everyone else is a fair game.

You sue for 2 million$, for attempt at your private life, as an ordinary citizen.
The lawyer will take his fees off the 2 million$ if you have a valid cause.
Therefore, this part of the justice system is accessible to everyone.

Criminal law is another matter, as could be more difficulte cases like racims&discrimination, hence why some special interest group can take the case not only in the name of the defendant but in the name of all people with similar cases.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2016, 09:58:19 AM
The state provides civil justice as a public good because there is a perceived social value in providing an effective system to receive redress and compensation for civil wrongs.  That rationale is weakened when the system is used not for the purpose of compensation but to destroy.

but the purpose of this suit was to compensate, as stated in the pleadings. (did it request punitive? then punish as well). but the motive/intent behind suits, except maybe a narrow exception in frivolous suits, doesn't seem to matter. people have and will sue not just because they suffered a harm and expect compensation but for any other reason, like a vendetta against someone. so, because it's fine for a plaintiff to have ulterior motives in his suit, what difference does it make whether the plaintiff's acting on behalf of another?

Isn't this why we have a jury system?

All these issues, about intent and motive and means...that should all come out in the trial and be presented to the jury. They will either take it seriously or not and render a judgement. That judgement won't always be perfect, but that is the system we have...I don't see any great flaw here, other than the lack of transparency.

What ways are available to fight back against a media entity using the throw-grenade-then-publicise-explosion tactic?

It does seem like the little guys are basically at the mercy of the spotlight if they are unlucky enough to get noticed. From that perspective, it does indeed seem like Theil's activities are both charitable and in the public interest.

In terms of public figure status, HH seems rather far down the ladder from either Falwell or Ventura, but what if it was just some regular nobody? Where there other people in HH's sex tape who weren't public figures and were made to endure the spotlight of sauron as a result of this? Presumably he was having sex with a non-public-figure, but I didn't see it.

Quote from: viper37 on June 03, 2016, 10:13:50 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2016, 10:08:04 AM
But isn't the alternative even worse? If you can only finance your own lawsuits, then media outlets like gawker know that the uber rich are untouchable - because they can destroy them - but everyone else is a fair game.

You sue for 2 million$, for attempt at your private life, as an ordinary citizen.
The lawyer will take his fees off the 2 million$ if you have a valid cause.
Therefore, this part of the justice system is accessible to everyone.

Criminal law is another matter, as could be more difficulte cases like racims&discrimination, hence why some special interest group can take the case not only in the name of the defendant but in the name of all people with similar cases.

Sorry I don't understand at all the point you are trying to make.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 03:06:48 PM
What ways are available to fight back against a media entity using the throw-grenade-then-publicise-explosion tactic?

It does seem like the little guys are basically at the mercy of the spotlight if they are unlucky enough to get noticed. From that perspective, it does indeed seem like Theil's activities are both charitable and in the public interest.

In terms of public figure status, HH seems rather far down the ladder from either Falwell or Ventura, but what if it was just some regular nobody? Where there other people in HH's sex tape who weren't public figures and were made to endure the spotlight of sauron as a result of this? Presumably he was having sex with a non-public-figure, but I didn't see it.

Rich leftist media moguls destroying peoples lives: protect the freedom of press!!!

A bunch of useless teenagers calling someone Jew online: stop the nazis!!!

That's how the regressive left operates these days.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 03:06:48 PM
In terms of public figure status, HH seems rather far down the ladder from either Falwell or Ventura, but what if it was just some regular nobody? Where there other people in HH's sex tape who weren't public figures and were made to endure the spotlight of sauron as a result of this? Presumably he was having sex with a non-public-figure, but I didn't see it.

Not much of a step down for those of the Wrestlemania generation, and he's tried to stay on the small screen through reality shows etc., but anyways, he turned himself into a public figure for these purposes and turned the sex tape into a "newsworthy" (in the legal term-of-art sense) item by boasting about on the radio show about it beforehand.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 03, 2016, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 03:06:48 PM
In terms of public figure status, HH seems rather far down the ladder from either Falwell or Ventura, but what if it was just some regular nobody? Where there other people in HH's sex tape who weren't public figures and were made to endure the spotlight of sauron as a result of this? Presumably he was having sex with a non-public-figure, but I didn't see it.

Not much of a step down for those of the Wrestlemania generation, and he's tried to stay on the small screen through reality shows etc., but anyways, he turned himself into a public figure for these purposes and turned the sex tape into a "newsworthy" (in the legal term-of-art sense) item by boasting about on the radio show about it beforehand.

Wow. That's a ridiculous argument. But then this can be expected from you.

:huh:  This is about US Constitutional law.  How do you think papparazzi/garbage tabloids stay in business?  "Newsworthiness" is defined for First Amendment purpose very, very broadly; and "public figures" forfeit their expectation of privacy, at the very least out in public, and have an extremely hard time making out a defamation action. 

This is one of those areas where US law, as a result of the way the First Amendment has been interpreted, not only diverges sharply from the civil law tradition but also from British common-law standards for the torts of defamation and invasion of privacy.

I'm not sure what the ridiculous argument you are attributing to me is -- could you be more precise?

But saying that he gave up his right to privacy when he bragged about it is ridiculous. If he bragged his wife has a nice vagina, it does not mean the paparazzi have a right now to publish pictures of it (and remember that the sex tape is not a solo show).

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2016, 04:51:39 PM
But saying that he gave up his right to privacy when he bragged about it is ridiculous. If he bragged his wife has a nice vagina, it does not mean the paparazzi have a right now to publish pictures of it (and remember that the sex tape is not a solo show).

As with the vast majority of your analogies, this one fails.  One is the description of an attribute (of another person), the other is his voluntary publication (to thousands of listeners) of a sexual encounter.  The other person in the sex tape -- if she was shown at all, I don't know if that's clear -- would probably have better grounds to sue Gawker for invasion of privacy.  And to sue Hulk Hogan, for that matter.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 03, 2016, 04:56:35 PMThe other person in the sex tape -- if she was shown at all, I don't know if that's clear -- would probably have better grounds to sue Gawker for invasion of privacy.  And to sue Hulk Hogan, for that matter.

Maybe they should have thrown their money behind that suit instead.

I wonder though---I think the Hulkster may have a better case for higher damages due to potential future losses than some "nobody"--again making the case that the court favors the rich. But I wonder what it's worth to forever have a video of you having sex pop up in an internet search. It's probably proportionally more damaging to a "nobody" than it is to HH.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 05:00:47 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 03, 2016, 04:56:35 PMThe other person in the sex tape -- if she was shown at all, I don't know if that's clear -- would probably have better grounds to sue Gawker for invasion of privacy.  And to sue Hulk Hogan, for that matter.

Maybe they should have thrown their money behind that suit instead.

I wonder though---I think the Hulkster may have a better case for higher damages due to potential future losses than some "nobody"--again making the case that the court favors the rich. But I wonder what it's worth to forever have a video of you having sex pop up in an internet search. It's probably proportionally more damaging to a "nobody" than it is to HH.

Yeah, the "appropriation of personality" tort he included in his suit that I was wondering about, at the very least.

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2016, 03:45:24 PM

Quote from: viper37 on June 03, 2016, 10:13:50 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2016, 10:08:04 AM
But isn't the alternative even worse? If you can only finance your own lawsuits, then media outlets like gawker know that the uber rich are untouchable - because they can destroy them - but everyone else is a fair game.

You sue for 2 million$, for attempt at your private life, as an ordinary citizen.
The lawyer will take his fees off the 2 million$ if you have a valid cause.
Therefore, this part of the justice system is accessible to everyone.

Criminal law is another matter, as could be more difficulte cases like racims&discrimination, hence why some special interest group can take the case not only in the name of the defendant but in the name of all people with similar cases.

Sorry I don't understand at all the point you are trying to make.

In libel case, it is very easy to find a lawyer that will take your case, if it is remotely serious, and sue the big media.  He will then take a portion of the settlement as payment.

So it is not true that the little guy has no chance against the big media.

Not a very good lawyer, though.

Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 12:55:32 PM
Not a very good lawyer, though.

Gloria Allred is alright.

Quote from: viper37 on June 04, 2016, 09:14:11 AM

In libel case, it is very easy to find a lawyer that will take your case, if it is remotely serious, and sue the big media.  He will then take a portion of the settlement as payment.

Do you have any evidence that this is true, or is this just something you felt you needed to assert in order to avoid acknowledging that you may be incorrect?

Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2016, 03:49:50 PM

Quote from: viper37 on June 04, 2016, 09:14:11 AM

In libel case, it is very easy to find a lawyer that will take your case, if it is remotely serious, and sue the big media.  He will then take a portion of the settlement as payment.

Do you have any evidence that this is true, or is this just something you felt you needed to assert in order to avoid acknowledging that you may be incorrect?

I suspect it's the latter.  :secret:

Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2016, 03:49:50 PM
Do you have any evidence that this is true, or is this just something you felt you needed to assert in order to avoid acknowledging that you may be incorrect?

Ah, so, there isn't anything as lawyer firms calling prospective clients once they're named by certain medias and offering them to sue on their behalf for a share of the settlement?

I know for a fact it happens in Quebec.  And I suspect it is very similar in the US, given your system.

Quote from: viper37 on June 05, 2016, 10:59:29 AM
Ah, so, there isn't anything as lawyer firms calling prospective clients once they're named by certain medias and offering them to sue on their behalf for a share of the settlement?

I ran this through my google Gibberish-to-English translator and it still came out as gibberish.

Do you have any evidence that it is true that "in libel case[sic], it is very easy to find a lawyer that will take your case, if it is remotely serious, and sue the big media"?

Grumbler, you do this with regularity and have done so for a long time so saying this is unlikely to change your behavior, but "[sic]"ing and ridiculing the syntax of non-native English speakers is ugly to watch.

True but isn't viper Canadian? I thought they speak English there...

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 06, 2016, 06:23:09 AM
Grumbler, you do this with regularity and have done so for a long time so saying this is unlikely to change your behavior, but "[sic]"ing and ridiculing the syntax of non-native English speakers is ugly to watch.

Mihali, you are correct.  I will continue to use [sic] properly, even if you don't like it and think it is ugly to watch.

Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2016, 05:54:12 AM

Quote from: viper37 on June 05, 2016, 10:59:29 AM
Ah, so, there isn't anything as lawyer firms calling prospective clients once they're named by certain medias and offering them to sue on their behalf for a share of the settlement?

I ran this through my google Gibberish-to-English translator and it still came out as gibberish.

Do you have any evidence that it is true that "in libel case[sic], it is very easy to find a lawyer that will take your case, if it is remotely serious, and sue the big media"?

It's not like you would ever admit being wrong, even when presented with all the evidence, as witnessed in many other threads, including the Game of Thrones one, so why would I waste my time with you? :)  If you can't even admit you are wrong when discussing trivial things like a TV show, why on earth will you admit anything else? :)

I'll leave you to discuss with Raz, he has the patience for you, I don't.

Quote from: viper37 on June 06, 2016, 09:19:54 AM
It's not like you would ever admit being wrong, even when presented with all the evidence, as witnessed in many other threads, including the Game of Thrones one, so why would I waste my time with you? :)  If you can't even admit you are wrong when discussing trivial things like a TV show, why on earth will you admit anything else? :)

I'll leave you to discuss with Raz, he has the patience for you, I don't.

So the answer is "no."  That's what I thought.  :lol:

I have no idea what the really lame attempt to red-herring away your lack of proof by citing some unknown thing in the GoT thread is about, but don't care, either.

Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2016, 09:12:29 AM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 06, 2016, 06:23:09 AM
Grumbler, you do this with regularity and have done so for a long time so saying this is unlikely to change your behavior, but "[sic]"ing and ridiculing the syntax of non-native English speakers is ugly to watch.

Mihali, you are correct.  I will continue to use [sic] properly, even if you don't like it and think it is ugly to watch.

You are sic.

Quote from: Martinus on June 06, 2016, 09:31:31 AM
You are sic.

Didn't you mean "You are sic [sic]"?

Quote from: viper37 on June 05, 2016, 10:59:29 AM
Ah, so, there isn't anything as lawyer firms calling prospective clients once they're named by certain medias and offering them to sue on their behalf for a share of the settlement?

Most states rules prohibit that kind of solicitation.

Just learned that Peter Thiel is trying to become a Trump delegate.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2016, 12:08:14 PM
Just learned that Peter Thiel is trying to become a Trump delegate.

:cheers:

Quote from: Martinus on June 06, 2016, 12:44:34 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2016, 12:08:14 PM
Just learned that Peter Thiel is trying to become a Trump delegate.

:cheers:

Why would you be excited about that?

Given that Trump came out strongly for stricter libel and defamation laws, that news is not reassuring.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2016, 09:52:47 AM

Quote from: viper37 on June 05, 2016, 10:59:29 AM
Ah, so, there isn't anything as lawyer firms calling prospective clients once they're named by certain medias and offering them to sue on their behalf for a share of the settlement?

Most states rules prohibit that kind of solicitation.

ok, soliciation is forbidden for most US jurisdiction.  And truth is a defense, so, that's two things different with Canada&Quebec.  But they do advertise fixed rates taken on the settlement (25-40%) you receive and the time it takes to get such settlement.  That means to me that lawyers are pretty confident to win in most cases, so when there are real prejudices, accessibility to justice is not a problem for the "little guy against the big media".

Trial judge refuses a stay on judgment pending appeal.  Gawker places itself in bankruptcy in response.

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/gawker-files-for-bankruptcy-to-protect-assets-from-hogan-004593

Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2016, 01:19:38 PM
Trial judge refuses a stay on judgment pending appeal.  Gawker places itself in bankruptcy in response.

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/gawker-files-for-bankruptcy-to-protect-assets-from-hogan-004593

:showoff:

Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2016, 01:19:38 PM
Trial judge refuses a stay on judgment pending appeal.  Gawker places itself in bankruptcy in response.

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/gawker-files-for-bankruptcy-to-protect-assets-from-hogan-004593

On a money judgment usually courts have limited discretion to stay enforcement.  A bankruptcy filing provides an automatic stay.  Also in bankruptcy unpaid claims accrue interest at the federal rate, typically lower than the state rate.

QuoteJudge blasts Nick Denton for lying about Gawker stock value
By Julia Marsh July 29, 2016 | 4:27pm | Updated

A Florida judge said Gawker founder Nick Denton "misled" the court about the value of his company — and punished him by ruling that Hulk Hogan could start seizing his assets.

Denton told Judge Pamela Campbell in June that Gawker Media Group, Inc. was worth $276 million.

He didn't have the cash to post the $50 million bond required to appeal the $140 million verdict awarded to Hogan, so he offered his stock in Gawker instead.

Denton said that his 30 percent stake in Gawker was worth $81 million.

The $81 million figure was "used to give [Hogan] and this court the impression that the stock had significant value," Campbell says in a decision released Friday.

Based on that representation Campbell agreed to the offer—only to learn later that the stock was worth closer to $30 million.

"Mr Denton...misled this court in connection with [his] pledge of Gawker Media Group, Inc. stock by concealing material information about the value of that stock which a reasonable person, under the circumstances, should have disclosed," Campbell says in the order.

What Denton did not disclose is that he'd already prepared to file bankruptcy on behalf of Gawker and had pledged to sell the company for just $90 million.

That sale price meant that Denton's share was worth under $30 million—not the $81 million he cited to the court.

"These are all material facts affecting the value of the stock Mr. Denton and Mr. Daulerio pledged," Campbell says in the ruling.

"The integrity of the civil litigation process depends on truthful disclosure of facts. Revealing only some of the facts does not constitute truthful disclosure," she writes.

In Friday's ruling the judge found that the new, $30 million value of Denton's stock "is not adequate" for the bond.

So she ruled that Hogan can start collecting on the jury award.

Hogan's attorney, David Houston, said his client "will do all within his power to enforce his judgment against" Denton.

Denton plans to ask an appeals court for an emergency stay of Judge Campbell's ruling.

"I have to say that I think the court really got this one wrong," Denton said. "The $81 million company valuation the court relied on was Hogan's valuation. We told the court they did not know what the company's shares would be worth.

"There was no misrepresentation," he said.

The $90 million is not a sale price, it was a stalking horse bid in the bankruptcy case.  Denton's affidavit placed no value on the stock at all.  His lawyers submitted a brief that pointed out that Bollea had claimed the $81 million valuation for the purposes of the punitive damages stage.  The brief says flat out that Denton and Gawker disputed the valuation and doubt its accuracy.

The court's opinion isn't up yet - I would be curious to see the reasoning.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2016, 09:52:47 AM

Quote from: viper37 on June 05, 2016, 10:59:29 AM
Ah, so, there isn't anything as lawyer firms calling prospective clients once they're named by certain medias and offering them to sue on their behalf for a share of the settlement?

Most states rules prohibit that kind of solicitation.

Does that only apply to specific people?  I got a crapload of solicitations about the VW diesel thing because I own one.  I suspect, though, that they were just sending mass mailings to every address associated with a VW diesel purchase.  Does that make it equivalent to those mesothielioma commercials encouraging people to call if they are affected?  Where is the line between encouraging and directly soliciting?

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 01, 2016, 11:03:24 AM
Does that only apply to specific people?  I got a crapload of solicitations about the VW diesel thing because I own one.  I suspect, though, that they were just sending mass mailings to every address associated with a VW diesel purchase.  Does that make it equivalent to those mesothielioma commercials encouraging people to call if they are affected?  Where is the line between encouraging and directly soliciting?

In a US class action, lawyers are typically appointed for entire class after court review once the class is certified by the Court.  Class counsel then represents the entire class of affected persons unless there is an opt-out.  So they can send out mailings to the whole class (and may be required to).

In a case like VW where VW basically had the DoJ as opponent, would the lawfirms that represent the class action still get a sizeable share of the money? All the hard work was done by the DoJ.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2016, 11:51:20 AM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 01, 2016, 11:03:24 AM
Does that only apply to specific people?  I got a crapload of solicitations about the VW diesel thing because I own one.  I suspect, though, that they were just sending mass mailings to every address associated with a VW diesel purchase.  Does that make it equivalent to those mesothielioma commercials encouraging people to call if they are affected?  Where is the line between encouraging and directly soliciting?

In a US class action, lawyers are typically appointed for entire class after court review once the class is certified by the Court.  Class counsel then represents the entire class of affected persons unless there is an opt-out.  So they can send out mailings to the whole class (and may be required to).

The solicitations I got were specifically encouraging me not to join a class action and to sue individually.  I don't recall ever getting anything about a class action suit.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 01, 2016, 01:53:55 PM
The solicitations I got were specifically encouraging me not to join a class action and to sue individually.  I don't recall ever getting anything about a class action suit.

That's odd.  What state are you in?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 01, 2016, 02:07:05 PM
That's odd.  What state are you in?

Texas.

Now I'm wishing I had saved some of them.

Hmm apparently direct mail solicitation is allowed.  Even in NY with some exceptions.  Not an area where I have much personal experience.

Quote from: Zanza on August 01, 2016, 12:04:16 PM
In a case like VW where VW basically had the DoJ as opponent, would the lawfirms that represent the class action still get a sizeable share of the money? All the hard work was done by the DoJ.

I could be wrong but I imagine the regulatory/government procedure will be a fine for that. The civil suits that follow will be separate. Otherwise VW would get off with only being penalised rather than being penalised for breaking the law and for the harm caused to individual consumers. Though I may be wrong.

But that's certainly how it's worked in the UK with banks getting fined by the regulator for, say, PPI mis-selling and then having to pay out to individual claimants - we've only really just started to develop class actions, they're group litigation here. My mum just got a couple of grand on the PPI :o

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2016, 01:18:05 PM
I could be wrong but I imagine the regulatory/government procedure will be a fine for that. The civil suits that follow will be separate. Otherwise VW would get off with only being penalised rather than being penalised for breaking the law and for the harm caused to individual consumers. Though I may be wrong.

I am pretty sure you are wrong. This may not cover every single case, but the settlement combined like 500 seperate federal and state lawsuits to be settled between the DoJ, the "plaintiff steering committee" and Volkswagen. It defines the options for the individual consumers to recover their damages and also stipulates serious fines for Volkswagen on top of that.

But isn't that for want of a better word a class action of state actors? Hence why it outlines ways for individuals to get their damages.

No, it's combined state and private actors on the plaintiff side. I just wondered if the plaintiff attorneys now get a sizeable share of the $15 billion settlement...

Zanza: the $15 million consists of $10 billion in payments/backbacks to consumers and $5 billion in pollution remediation.

The $10 billion also entails resolution of the private civil law suits so the plaintiff lawyers can and will seek fees based on that settlement.  However, it will not come put of the $10 billion - VW agreed in the settlement to pay the fees ordered by the court on top of the 10 billion.

Is there any way to estimate how much those fees will be?

http://www.recode.net/2016/8/16/12504008/univision-is-buying-gawker-media-for-135-million

QuoteUnivision is buying Gawker Media for $135 million

Univision has won the auction for Gawker Media.

The TV network and digital publisher has agreed to pay $135 million for the bankrupt blog network, according to a person familiar with the deal.

Univision's offer will encompass all seven of Gawker Media's sites, including Gawker.com

Ziff Davis and Univision were the only two bidders for Gawker, which filed for bankruptcy after Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel won a $140 million judgment in a privacy case. Ziff Davis had originally offered $90 million for Gawker Media.

Here's a statement from Gawker Media owner Nick Denton: "Gawker Media Group has agreed this evening to sell our business and popular brands to Univision, one of America's largest media companies that is rapidly assembling the leading digital media group for millennial and multicultural audiences. I am pleased that our employees are protected and will continue their work under new ownership — disentangled from the legal campaign against the company. We could not have picked an acquirer more devoted to vibrant journalism."

Mark Patricof, the Houlihan Lokey banker who represented Gawker Media, confirmed the sale price.

"The outcome exceeded our expectations. Both parties put in an awful lot of work, and Ziff Davis deserves credit for their effort," Patricof said. "But ultimately Univision prevailed, and both sides are happy with the outcome."

The deal won't be official for a bit. For starters, a U.S. bankruptcy court judge needs to sign off on the transaction. When it is final, the judgment funds will be set aside while Gawker appeals its court case; eventually the money will go to the side that wins.

Whatever the result of the case, the auction is a disappointing conclusion for Denton, who founded the company in 2002.

Last year, as rival media companies like Vice, BuzzFeed and Vox Media (which owns this site) were raising money at increasingly high valuations, Denton was arguing that his company was worth $250 million or more.

Univision, which until recently was best known as a Spanish-language TV network, has been expanding its digital reach in recent years by acquiring satire site The Onion and The Root, a publication aimed at African-Americans.

And earlier this year it picked up full ownership of Fusion, the network and digital publisher aimed at millennials, which it originally launched in conjunction with Disney.

 :lol:

Interesting - once again a questionable premise argued by Hogan's lawyers and apparently accepted uncritically by the trial judge - in this case that the Ziff-Davis $90 million bid was equivalent to a valuation - turns out to be wrong.

QuoteThe end of Gawker.com is near.

The 14-year-old website will shut down next week, according to a post on Gawker.com.

Univision on Tuesday agreed to buy the six other sites that make up Gawker Media for $135 million, but the broadcaster did not plan to operate the flagship site.

Gawker Media founder Nick Denton told staff about the shuttering of the website on Thursday, per Gawker.com. There will be a bankruptcy court hearing later on Thursday to approve Univision's bid. It is unclear what will happen to Gawker.com's coverage or the site's archives.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gawkercom-shut-down-next-week-920593 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gawkercom-shut-down-next-week-920593)

Oh noes! What will the world do without whatever it was Gawker did for us?

http://internet.gawker.com/i-interrupted-anime-twitter-cybersex-roleplay-as-bar-re-1694251707
Sad :(

Peter Thiel has now seeded all the journalists working at Gawker with a hatred for him which they can now nurture in all the other publications they're going to join :w00t:

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2016, 12:38:01 PM
http://internet.gawker.com/i-interrupted-anime-twitter-cybersex-roleplay-as-bar-re-1694251707
Sad :(

Peter Thiel has now seeded all the journalists working at Gawker with a hatred for him which they can now nurture in all the other publications they're going to join :w00t:

:D at all of it.

The Gawker offices today:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnrA3v7CEAAY99m.jpg)

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2016, 12:38:01 PM
the journalists working at Gawker

I am not sure people writing for Gawker can be called "journalists", and posting stupid shit online during an unpaid internship "working". :P

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2016, 09:21:27 AM
Interesting - once again a questionable premise argued by Hogan's lawyers and apparently accepted uncritically by the trial judge - in this case that the Ziff-Davis $90 million bid was equivalent to a valuation - turns out to be wrong.

I am not familiar with US bankruptcy laws, but wouldn't Univision be buying Gawker's assets without its liabilities, on account of this being done as a part of bankruptcy case? If so, the overall valuation of Gawker is probably much lower than what Univision is paying.

I would guess it would depend on the outcome of the case, since the value of the entity would be significantly affected.

Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2016, 01:05:54 AM
I am not sure people writing for Gawker can be called "journalists", and posting stupid shit online during an unpaid internship "working". :P

Snob. You probably say the same about Buzzfeed :P

A lovely piece on why working for Gawker was great - from a journo now at the New Yorker, hating Peter Thiel :)
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/gawker-was-a-great-place-to-become-a-journalist

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 07:10:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2016, 01:05:54 AM
I am not sure people writing for Gawker can be called "journalists", and posting stupid shit online during an unpaid internship "working". :P

Snob. You probably say the same about Buzzfeed :P

A lovely piece on why working for Gawker was great - from a journo now at the New Yorker, hating Peter Thiel :)
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/gawker-was-a-great-place-to-become-a-journalist

That article is an excellent argument for Marti's assertion that journalism isn't what Gawker was about.  This is all one sentence in his article: "I thought it was so cool when Choire Sicha, the editor at the time, put up a post protesting a change in the color of Gawker's own headline fonts, designed to appease the site's advertisers, and how Sicha and his co-editor, Emily Gould, announced that they were quitting the site at the very end of a meandering account of an evening they had spent with Keith Gessen, the founder of the literary magazine n+1 and a favorite target of Gawker, during which they discussed an essay that had recently run in n+1 . . . about Gawker."  Good writing is getting harder to find, especially when writers like this get published anyway.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 07:10:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2016, 01:05:54 AM
I am not sure people writing for Gawker can be called "journalists", and posting stupid shit online during an unpaid internship "working". :P

Snob. You probably say the same about Buzzfeed :P

A lovely piece on why working for Gawker was great - from a journo now at the New Yorker, hating Peter Thiel :)
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/gawker-was-a-great-place-to-become-a-journalist

I hope you posted this ironically - because with gems like:

QuoteOne of Gawker's key innovations was to industrialize this utopian impulse, by putting writers in front of a mass audience while still encouraging them to express themselves however they wanted, as long as they wrote a sufficient number of posts and attracted a decent number of page views

QuoteI was mostly captivated by the site's gonzo style, in which Gawker's most engaging writers became starring characters in the drama they covered.

QuoteAt the same time, the opportunity to write anything and have it appear on the front page of Gawker was exhilarating. I could put out an endless stream of swear words, make fun of someone I didn't like, or construct a penis from numbers and symbols (8===D, haha).

it seems to encapsulate everything that is wrong with modern online "journalism".

QuoteOne of Gawker's key innovations was to industrialize this utopian impulse, by putting writers in front of a mass audience while still encouraging them to express themselves however they wanted, as long as they wrote a sufficient number of posts and attracted a decent number of page views

Yeah? Well fuck Gawker then.

God forbid a media outlet should be fun. Pearl clutching aside there's nothing wrong with tabloid fun or a style that manages to still seem like a personal blog.

The biggest crime of any journalism is to be boring. Gawker was never that.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 07:35:52 AM
The biggest crime of any journalism is to be boring.

Well let's just say I couldn't disagree more with this statement. But then I am certainly not the audience for shock jocks like these turds.

Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2016, 07:38:27 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 07:35:52 AM
The biggest crime of any journalism is to be boring.

Well let's just say I couldn't disagree more with this statement. But then I am certainly not the audience for shock jocks like these turds.

Don't have to be a shock-jock. The FT isn't boring, neither's Politico - they're just niche which is fine. But if they're putting out stuff that noone can be arsed, to read then they deserve to fail. The key for any journo is to be interesting and engaging because they're asking us to take the time out to read them :)

All Hail Immortal Vampire Thiel.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2016, 09:03:51 PM
The Gawker offices today:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnrA3v7CEAAY99m.jpg)

Jezebel still lives. Job isn't done.

Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2016, 01:08:33 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2016, 09:21:27 AM
Interesting - once again a questionable premise argued by Hogan's lawyers and apparently accepted uncritically by the trial judge - in this case that the Ziff-Davis $90 million bid was equivalent to a valuation - turns out to be wrong.

I am not familiar with US bankruptcy laws, but wouldn't Univision be buying Gawker's assets without its liabilities, on account of this being done as a part of bankruptcy case? If so, the overall valuation of Gawker is probably much lower than what Univision is paying.

There was about $20 million in secured debt, but that would impact the Ziff-Davis bid equally.
The Bollea judgment was the only unsecured obligation.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 07:35:52 AM
God forbid a media outlet should be fun. Pearl clutching aside there's nothing wrong with tabloid fun or a style that manages to still seem like a personal blog.

The biggest crime of any journalism is to be boring. Gawker was never that.

Our American posters are forgetting that the First Amendment protects freedom of the press.  Not freedom of "journalism"

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2016, 09:25:41 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 07:35:52 AM
God forbid a media outlet should be fun. Pearl clutching aside there's nothing wrong with tabloid fun or a style that manages to still seem like a personal blog.

The biggest crime of any journalism is to be boring. Gawker was never that.

Our American posters are forgetting that the First Amendment protects freedom of the press.  Not freedom of "journalism"

Does the First Amendment compel me to approve of everything? Damn. Is happiness also mandatory?

Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2016, 09:27:26 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2016, 09:25:41 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 07:35:52 AM
God forbid a media outlet should be fun. Pearl clutching aside there's nothing wrong with tabloid fun or a style that manages to still seem like a personal blog.

The biggest crime of any journalism is to be boring. Gawker was never that.

Our American posters are forgetting that the First Amendment protects freedom of the press.  Not freedom of "journalism"

Does the First Amendment compel me to approve of everything? Damn. Is happiness also mandatory?

Yes

Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2016, 09:27:26 AM
Does the First Amendment compel me to approve of everything?

Au contraire.  It doesn't compel you to approve of anything.  Certainly not the horrific shitshow that is Terry Bollea and Nick Denton.  But it also doesn't allow one to suppress or destroy that which one finds obnoxious.

Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2016, 09:27:26 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2016, 09:25:41 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 07:35:52 AM
God forbid a media outlet should be fun. Pearl clutching aside there's nothing wrong with tabloid fun or a style that manages to still seem like a personal blog.

The biggest crime of any journalism is to be boring. Gawker was never that.

Our American posters are forgetting that the First Amendment protects freedom of the press.  Not freedom of "journalism"

Does the First Amendment compel me to approve of everything? Damn. Is happiness also mandatory?

Our American lawyer posters are forgetting that the First Amendment isn't about their personal tastes in journalism, it is about free speech.  Including yours.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 07:44:35 AM
Don't have to be a shock-jock. The FT isn't boring, neither's Politico - they're just niche which is fine. But if they're putting out stuff that noone can be arsed, to read then they deserve to fail. The key for any journo is to be interesting and engaging because they're asking us to take the time out to read them :)

I absolutely disagree.  Proper journalism is about telling a compelling and relevant story, not about being a compelling and relevant journalist.  Better stories should be the goal, not better storytellers.

Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2016, 08:55:57 PM
I absolutely disagree.  Proper journalism is about telling a compelling and relevant story, not about being a compelling and relevant journalist.  Better stories should be the goal, not better storytellers.

I probably wasn't clear I mean for their writing and work to be interesting and engaging. Whether that's just on style points, for content or both I think is much of a muchness and different people will have different preferences. The only thing they can't be is dull.

For Gawker their whole approach was closer to blogging - which is always personal and depends on a voice. Like Andrew Sullivan (the only other example I can think of as an early blogger who defined the form) that voice was part of the reason to read. The stories are normally available elsewhere even if they break it. As someone pointed out, journalists are more fun to chat to in a pub than read in print and Gawker tried to close that gap. In general their work was too good (huge number of stories about domestic abuse by sportsmen which I think have mattered, Rob Ford) to be totally happy they're closing and too awful (they were, very often, bullies) to be martyrs.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 09:23:07 PM

Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2016, 08:55:57 PM
I absolutely disagree.  Proper journalism is about telling a compelling and relevant story, not about being a compelling and relevant journalist.  Better stories should be the goal, not better storytellers.

I probably wasn't clear I mean for their writing and work to be interesting and engaging. Whether that's just on style points, for content or both I think is much of a muchness and different people will have different preferences. The only thing they can't be is dull.

For Gawker their whole approach was closer to blogging - which is always personal and depends on a voice. Like Andrew Sullivan (the only other example I can think of as an early blogger who defined the form) that voice was part of the reason to read. The stories are normally available elsewhere even if they break it. As someone pointed out, journalists are more fun to chat to in a pub than read in print and Gawker tried to close that gap. In general their work was too good (huge number of stories about domestic abuse by sportsmen which I think have mattered, Rob Ford) to be totally happy they're closing and too awful (they were, very often, bullies) to be martyrs.

Bloggers are not journalists.  They are the equivalent of the old op-ed writers.  And you have been quite clear that, for you, style can substitute for substance.  I just don't happen to agree.  I think that there is writing for entertainment, and there is writing for communication, and that journalists do the latter, while Gawker et al do the former.  There is nothing wrong with writing for entertainment - that's what we all do here, after all, but I don't consider the writers here to be journalists any more than the Gawker writers were.   "Write whatever you want, however you want, as long as you get page views" isn't journalism.

Bloggers can be journalists it depends if they're reporting or just commentating/analysing.

They were reporting too - as I say, see the Rob Ford stuff and NFL domestic violence cases. They broke stories and were a model for other new media sites like Buzzfeed who've now branched out into genuinely excellent journalism as well as internet snark/lists/cats. I think it's a bit like when the picture, scandal and murder heavy tabloids - like the Picture Post - came out in early twentieth century. It's just a slightly different approach.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 20, 2016, 05:40:51 AM
Bloggers can be journalists it depends if they're reporting or just commentating/analysing.

They were reporting too - as I say, see the Rob Ford stuff and NFL domestic violence cases. They broke stories and were a model for other new media sites like Buzzfeed who've now branched out into genuinely excellent journalism as well as internet snark/lists/cats. I think it's a bit like when the picture, scandal and murder heavy tabloids - like the Picture Post - came out in early twentieth century. It's just a slightly different approach.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I think.  I simply don't accept that the difference between being a journalist and not being a journalist is whether or not you are reporting new information.  To me, journalism is about reporting all the facts available in a manner that gives the reader confidence that the story contains all the relevant facts and that the facts reported are true.  Journalists have editors (and, ideally, fact-checkers) and a reputation for professionalism to maintain.  I reject your concept that Ed Anger becomes a journalist when he describes here, first-person, his latest bowel movement.

Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2016, 08:52:59 PM
Our American lawyer posters are forgetting that the First Amendment isn't about their personal tastes in journalism, it is about free speech.  Including yours.

?

Quote from: grumbler on August 20, 2016, 06:19:12 AM
To me, journalism is about reporting all the facts available in a manner that gives the reader confidence that the story contains all the relevant facts and that the facts reported are true.

So you consider journalism a fictional construct?


:)

Quote from: grumbler on August 20, 2016, 06:19:12 AM
  I reject your concept that Ed Anger becomes a journalist when he describes here, first-person, his latest bowel movement.

Indeed. He becomes a scientist, according to Real Peer Review.

SCIENCE!

The swan song: http://gawker.com/gawker-was-murdered-by-gaslight-1785456581?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Gawker_twitter

Quote from: Jacob on August 22, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
The swan song: http://gawker.com/gawker-was-murdered-by-gaslight-1785456581?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Gawker_twitter

Good article.

Agreed.

It sucked.  "The NY Times did stuff just as bad.  boo hoo hoo."

agree with yi

QuoteThe law will not protect you. There is no freedom in this world but power and money.

:lol:

at the end of the day, it's just another business that went bust from a lawsuit. nothing more, nothing less.

Yes the writer was feeling understandably emotional.

First they came for gawker. What's next? Queerty? Perez Hilton? Breitbart? Infowars? Will this downward spiral never end? :(

Quote from: garbon on August 23, 2016, 01:30:16 AM
Yes the writer was feeling understandably emotional.

well, there's being understandably emotional, and there's writing a bad article. look at the jab at the judge for refusing to play the tape in court (because of probably the rules of evidence). wouldn't that have helped gawker more than anything?

Quote from: Martinus on August 23, 2016, 06:48:46 AM
First they came for gawker. What's next? Queerty? Perez Hilton? Breitbart? Infowars? Will this downward spiral never end? :(

Well quite :(

Most of the story is whining and apologetics but at the end it gets at what I think is a significant issue.

There are 3 potentially problematic aspects of the civil legal system in the US:
1)  Very open ended discovery, causing cases to drag on for long and generate huge costs.
2)  Jackpot damages award driven in part by civil juries.
3)  It is very difficult to stay enforcement on a verdict pending appeal absent the ability to post security for the entire amount (and enforcement powers are very extensive).

All three issues were present here, but the combination of (2) and (3) is what killed the company.

the problems of (1) and (2) are widely known, not so much (3).  (3) becomes an issue because of (2) - awards can easily get past a party's ability to secure on a bond and thus the appeal right becomes ineffective - even if you appeal and win, the judgment creditor can destroy you in the interim.

Whatever people think about gawker (and personally i knew very little about it before this case) or its conduct against Bollea, as a purely legal matter this is a very close case.  It's concerning when a defendant with a meritorious appeal gets wiped out before it can prosecute that appeal. 

Thiel is backing a start up based on funding law-suits: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/peter-thiels-foundation-funds-a-start-up-to-bet-on-other-lawsuits

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2016, 10:49:46 AM
Most of the story is whining and apologetics but at the end it gets at what I think is a significant issue.

There are 3 potentially problematic aspects of the civil legal system in the US:
1)  Very open ended discovery, causing cases to drag on for long and generate huge costs.
2)  Jackpot damages award driven in part by civil juries.
3)  It is very difficult to stay enforcement on a verdict pending appeal absent the ability to post security for the entire amount (and enforcement powers are very extensive).

All three issues were present here, but the combination of (2) and (3) is what killed the company.

the problems of (1) and (2) are widely known, not so much (3).  (3) becomes an issue because of (2) - awards can easily get past a party's ability to secure on a bond and thus the appeal right becomes ineffective - even if you appeal and win, the judgment creditor can destroy you in the interim.

Whatever people think about gawker (and personally i knew very little about it before this case) or its conduct against Bollea, as a purely legal matter this is a very close case.  It's concerning when a defendant with a meritorious appeal gets wiped out before it can prosecute that appeal.

Another problem not mentioned: in most states, no cost awards rules, which together with the potential for jury jackpots makes pursuing low-chance litigation more attractive than it arguably should be, as it lacks the significant disincentive costs awards provide.

Interesting observations, Minsky. I wasn't aware of no. 3. In Poland it is very rare to get an immediate enforcement of a ruling pending an appeal - it is only the case in some special types of cases - like alimony claims - or if the plaintiff can show that he would be deprived of the benefit of his claim if the enforcement was delayed.

Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2016, 01:20:41 PM
Interesting observations, Minsky. I wasn't aware of no. 3. In Poland it is very rare to get an immediate enforcement of a ruling pending an appeal - it is only the case in some special types of cases - like alimony claims - or if the plaintiff can show that he would be deprived of the benefit of his claim if the enforcement was delayed.

Most states use the FRCP as a model, especially in their civil parts/divisions, and FRCP 62:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_62

QuoteRule 62. Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment
(a) Automatic Stay; Exceptions for Injunctions, Receiverships, and Patent Accountings. Except as stated in this rule, no execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 14 days have passed after its entry. But unless the court orders otherwise, the following are not stayed after being entered, even if an appeal is taken:

(1) an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction or a receivership; or

(2) a judgment or order that directs an accounting in an action for patent infringement.

(b) Stay Pending the Disposition of a Motion. On appropriate terms for the opposing party's security, the court may stay the execution of a judgment—or any proceedings to enforce it—pending disposition of any of the following motions:

(1) under Rule 50, for judgment as a matter of law;

(2) under Rule 52(b), to amend the findings or for additional findings;

(3) under Rule 59, for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment; or

(4) under Rule 60, for relief from a judgment or order.

(c) Injunction Pending an Appeal. While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party's rights. If the judgment appealed from is rendered by a statutory three-judge district court, the order must be made either:

(1) by that court sitting in open session; or

(2) by the assent of all its judges, as evidenced by their signatures.

(d) Stay with Bond on Appeal. If an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond, except in an action described in Rule 62(a)(1) or (2). The bond may be given upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond.

(e) Stay Without Bond on an Appeal by the United States, Its Officers, or Its Agencies. The court must not require a bond, obligation, or other security from the appellant when granting a stay on an appeal by the United States, its officers, or its agencies or on an appeal directed by a department of the federal government.

(f) Stay in Favor of a Judgment Debtor Under State Law. If a judgment is a lien on the judgment debtor's property under the law of the state where the court is located, the judgment debtor is entitled to the same stay of execution the state court would give.

(g) Appellate Court's Power Not Limited. This rule does not limit the power of the appellate court or one of its judges or justices:

(1) to stay proceedings—or suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction—while an appeal is pending; or

(2) to issue an order to preserve the status quo or the effectiveness of the judgment to be entered.

(h) Stay with Multiple Claims or Parties. A court may stay the enforcement of a final judgment entered under Rule 54(b) until it enters a later judgment or judgments, and may prescribe terms necessary to secure the benefit of the stayed judgment for the party in whose favor it was entered.

FRCP 60 outlines a list of qualifiers where there could be temporary or permanent relief from a judgment, but all require some form of affirmative, documented cause- Peter Thiel being an arrogant twat sadly would not be enough cause for relief due to opposition misconduct under FRCP 60(b)(3), for example.