|
Epic High Five posted:Maybe don't post revenge porn in stark violation of law and decency so people don't have an opening to kick you in the ribs if they so desire Of course, an appeals court has ruled the video was newsworthy, but why does that matter if we can cheer the wealthy bankrupting a media organization before the appeals can work their slow way through the legal system.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Spun Dog posted:So the suit had no merits if Hogan couldn't bankroll it himself? The problem I have with it is it's not a suit that's designed to do what's in Hogan's best interests. It's a suit designed at specifically killing the site. They specifically removed a charge that would have allowed Gawker to tap into their Insurance's money to help pay for costs and damages to Hogan. The Insurance company has waaaay more money that Gawker could ever fork over, so if maximizing damages was the objective you would have included the Insurance company. This is the specific targeting and attempted destruction of a media site simply because the bankroller was mad that they posted bad things about what he's doing. And are using a Hogan(who has legit grievances, though gently caress him and the fact that Famous people saying racist poo poo is newsworthy IMO, though probably didn't need the entire tape for that) as a proxy to do so. This is really really hosed up. And the only sites I really visit on the Gawker Network are Kotaku(which would be fine, they seemingly operate autonomously, and Io9(now I guess part of Gizmondo)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
greatn posted:Are you sure it wasn't because they would get more money? Cause it resulted in them getting a lot more money. It actually probably won't. Hogan's entire legal strategy made no sense from a perspective of Hogan doing what is best for him. If he got a payout from the insurance company, there would be no appeal, he would get the entire amount in full and it would be over. Instead he went directly for Gawker, per his agreement with Thiel, and risked getting no money. Now, even though he won, he has to face an appeal that will likely significantly shrink what he actually gets. Additionally, since the payout is from Gawker the media entity and not the insurance company Hogan will have to recoup the money through liens and collections during a bankruptcy process, which means he will get a fraction of a fraction of what the headline number is. This whole process was designed to inflict maximum damage on Gawker and Hogan agreed because he was fronting $0 in exchange for maybe tens of millions instead of fronting $5 million in exchange for a basiucally guaranteed 50-75 million.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The suit was argued in such a way that it made Hogan's chances of winning much smaller and he will recieve a smaller payout over a longer period of time (and is not even guaranteed to recieve all of it) because Thiel wanted to secretly use it as a way to go after Gawker as a media organization. Hogan agreed to accept the risk and smaller payment in exchange for keeping quiet about who was funding him in order for one person to shut down a media organization. I don't see what the problem is then. One rich rear end in a top hat sues a bunch of other rich assholes and wins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Maybe don't post revenge porn in stark violation of law and decency so people don't have an opening to kick you in the ribs if they so desire
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:While we're at it, don't make jokes about posting kiddie porn in a legal deposition, either. What's the context of this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:While we're at it, don't make jokes about posting kiddie porn in a legal deposition, either. The dude who did that doesn't even work at Gawker anymore to be fair. And Hasn't for a while IIRC
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:What's the context of this? quote:A palpable sense of shock rippled through a courtroom here Wednesday morning when the former editor in chief of Gawker.com was shown in a videotaped deposition suggesting that almost anything goes when it comes to the newsworthiness of celebrities' sex videos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:I don't see what the problem is then. One rich rear end in a top hat sues a bunch of other rich assholes and wins. You really see no problem in wealthy people with spite being able to use the legal process to shut down media organizations? Now you might cheer because you don't like Gawker, but it's shallow thinking to imagine this isn't the how-to example for other individuals to shut down the media organizations they don't like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Dexo posted:The dude who did that doesn't even work at Gawker anymore to be fair. And Hasn't for a while IIRC Let's be clear, I think the suit went too far and has the potential to cause great harm to a large number of individuals with no role or knowledge in what happened here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And he was still given bail, and only for 60k. I know it's the south but come the gently caress on. I hope the feds do get involved because I have zero faith in law enforcement in the south going heavy on punishing a white military guy who targeted brown/muslim people while the Feds would nail this piece of poo poo to the wall. The most serious thing they charged him with was assault with a deadly weapon, which is a class E felony. 60k bail is on the high end for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You really see no problem in wealthy people with spite being able to use the legal process to shut down media organizations? Not really. I'll worry when media organizations who don't post sex tapes start getting shut down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The suit was argued in such a way that it made Hogan's chances of winning much smaller and he will recieve a smaller payout over a longer period of time (and is not even guaranteed to recieve all of it) because Thiel wanted to secretly use it as a way to go after Gawker as a media organization. Hogan agreed to accept the risk and smaller payment in exchange for keeping quiet about who was funding him in order for one person to shut down a media organization. Theil was looking for people with legitimate lawsuits to fund in order to extract revenge. Since the Hogan case was in fact a legitimate lawsuit and it's fairly likely Hogan was 100% on board with a riskier legal strategy with the potential upside of really loving the people he was also legitimately mad at, I'm really at a loss to see the issue. Don't post revenge porn of people while also being a ragging rear end in a top hat about it and Theil has nothing but impotent rage. Funding nuisance lawsuits and burying Gawker in frivolous claims is bad. Burying Gawker in legitimate lawsuits is not. Maybe Gawker shouldn't have done so much clearly wrong poo poo if they wanted to continue existing. Being media isn't a licence to do illegal/actionable poo poo, and you don't get to cry about press freedom and silencing the people when you're clearly at legit fault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
AJ Daulrio is a gigantic rear end in a top hat. But like that deposition won't have anything to do with the appeal, aside from giving the other side ammunition to use about why a billionaire killing a site is actually a good and deserved thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You really see no problem in wealthy people with spite being able to use the legal process to shut down media organizations? Hey man, what's the big deal if Rupert Murdoch ever decides to sue CNN and MSNBC and other actual better news organizations? Eat the rich! Also kill bankers because
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You really see no problem in wealthy people with spite being able to use the legal process to shut down media organizations? I think it's more a lot of people don't consider gawker a media organization any more than they would consider TMZ a media organization
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Not really. I'll worry when media organizations who don't post sex tapes start getting shut down. What if gawker completely wins their appeal but is still bankrupted by their legal costs, will you still consider it a good thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You really see no problem in wealthy people with spite being able to use the legal process to shut down media organizations? I don't think anybody was the good guy in this, so I'm pretty ambivalent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Their mistake was ignoring their astrologers and going after Hogan instead, despite this being the Year of the Yooge Orange Man
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/741322688870895616 Is that normal, finance goons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What if gawker completely wins their appeal but is still bankrupted by their legal costs, will you still consider it a good thing? "What if the situation completely changes, will you feel different about it then?" If somehow Gawker is found to be not at fault for posting a sex tape but gets bankrupted defending it, yes, I will feel sympathy for Gawker. I doubt that will happen. Fake Edit - Amusingly enough, this story is not yet up on Gawker. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
people shouldn't post sex tapes of others, but people also shouldn't use the court system to bring down news organizations they personally disagree with put me down for a "truth is in the middle"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"What if the situation completely changes, will you feel different about it then?" The appeals court found that the tape was newsworthy, which would make it well within Gawker's rights to post it. The judge in the trial court excluded that evidence. This judge has been overturned on several points throughout the trial by the higher court. The most likely result is that Gawker will prevail on appeal if they can survive to the appeal stage. But it won't really matter now; Thiel's objective of carrying out his vendetta was achieved, and the sale is underway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"What if the situation completely changes, will you feel different about it then?" There are good legal arguments as to what gawker posted was legal. We will see how they play out on appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Here is permission to be guilt-free mad at billionaires trying to silence the press
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You really see no problem in wealthy people with spite being able to use the legal process to shut down media organizations? well i'm sure billionaires are just waiting like hawks to swoop down on the poor little plucky revenge porn tabloids of the world and shut down freedom of press
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"What if the situation completely changes, will you feel different about it then?" Gawker already has 3 Florida courts that denied a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the sex tape and content within was "newsworthy". They lost a Jury trial. I still would be shocked if they lost the appeal. It's a pity that Gawker doesn't have the funds to defend their completely legal posting of albeit trashy news from the billionaire who is mad about something else that was newsworthy that Gawker reported that made him look bad.. Dexo fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Zelder posted:news organizations Well there's your problem
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:well i'm sure billionaires are just waiting like hawks to swoop down on the poor little plucky revenge porn tabloids of the world and shut down freedom of press Well, as zoux posted, there's Vandersloot's lawsuit against Mother Jones for libel that failed, but nearly wrecked the company. Adelson bought the Las Vegas paper and immediately tried to use the coverage to influence lawsuits he was involved in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
I'm concerned about the Gawker thing if only because several of their subsidiaries have hired a lot of legitimately good writers over the last 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:well i'm sure billionaires are just waiting like hawks to swoop down on the poor little plucky revenge porn tabloids of the world and shut down freedom of press Adelson secretly bought the largest paper in NV so yeah, gawker is just the latest victim. But here's the thing, if the local mining company in Gillette wants to secretly fund all the legitimate court cases against the local paper until it is bankrupted and one of their relatives can buy it, how the gently caress would I know it was happening?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Don King has endorsed Trump. Clinching the black vote already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Well, as zoux posted, there's Vandersloot's lawsuit against Mother Jones for libel that failed, but nearly wrecked the company. please don't construe me laughing at gawker for getting sued over publishing a sex tape as a defense of nuisance lawsuits. this is not a dichotomy, i can laugh at both while pointing out that gawker did do an unethical thing and got punished for it
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The real shame is that Denton will still be rich and insufferable. Depends on how aggressive Theil wants to be, he might say he'll settle as long has Denton get's nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Of course, an appeals court has ruled the video was newsworthy, but why does that matter if we can cheer the wealthy bankrupting a media organization before the appeals can work their slow way through the legal system. Two appeals courts
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:please don't construe me laughing at gawker for getting sued over publishing a sex tape as a defense of nuisance lawsuits. this is not a dichotomy, i can laugh at both while pointing out that gawker did do an unethical thing and got punished for it Unethical, debatable. I probably lean closer to your side, as you could have done a ton besides what they did to just get the news out there about what he said and did. This is more than punishing though. This is more like akin to speeding in Oklahoma, and when you get pulled over by a cop, they decide that you may be smuggling drugs, and rather than searching your car they decide to use Civil Forfeture to take everything you own pending court cases. So you are SOL until you can hire a lawyer, and get your poo poo back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Don't they have an appeal left? Did that get denied or did they just run out of money to continue? Florida law required Gawker to put up half the money as bond before the appeal. Given that half the money was $15 million or whatever, well... ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Unethical, debatable. I probably lean to your side, as you could have done a ton to just get the news out there about what he said and what not . That Oklahoma device turned out to only work on prepaid gift cards. Still poo poo but not quite as bad as "can literally drain your bank account."
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:That Oklahoma device turned out to only work on prepaid gift cards. Still poo poo but not quite as bad as "can literally drain your bank account." I thought this wasn't true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:That Oklahoma device turned out to only work on prepaid gift cards. Still poo poo but not quite as bad as "can literally drain your bank account." Yeah I know. It was a hypothetical. Just picture a cop saying they have to take your car and anything inside of it in the civil forfeiture heavy area's in the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:57
|
|