|
yea ok posted:Looks like some guy named Ziff is buying them. He's the person who currently owns websites like IGN, GameSpy, UGO, 1UP, TeamXbox, etc. "Leaders in Tech, Gaming and Men's Lifestyle" Buying Gawker. Okay that's just loving hilarious.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Onmi posted:He's the person who currently owns websites like IGN, GameSpy, UGO, 1UP, TeamXbox, etc. Kotaku & Gizmodo would be big gets for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
vainman posted:Hogan, or anyone really, losing their case because they didn't have enough money is really bad and I'm not sure why people are trying to think of a way to make that happen Because they don't like hulk hogan
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:16
|
|
He expended too much energy and got tired
|
BROCK LESBIAN posted:Then Gawker should have had a way to shut it down. They did, and an appellate court basically told the trial judge to toss the case. The trial judge effectively ignored that order. That's where Gawker's ability to win on appeal comes from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
It's important to remember that a rich person using their money and power to put someone out of business is the height of all evil, but rich and powerful people using their money and power to ruin the lives of civilians is important protected speech and the two things aren't similar at all because the rich guy has politics I don't like and the rich and powerful people have politics I do like Too bad that argument can't stand up to the power of Hulkamania
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
If you think right and wrong exist outside a political context then lol Also lol if you think Peter Thiel isn't powerful
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Wasn't it Gawker who published the manifest that proved Bill Clinton was a frequent passenger on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express? Seems like despite their reputation- organizations like Gawker and Buzzfeed might actually exhibit shades of real journalism. I've never gone to either website looking to be informed but I know they publish things from time-to-time that actually fall within the realm of being worthy of public interest. Oh well. RIP Gawker. Death by worked sex tape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/741354380247470080
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Eleanor Pwnsevelt posted:Wasn't it Gawker who published the manifest that proved Bill Clinton was a frequent passenger on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express? Seems like despite their reputation- organizations like Gawker and Buzzfeed might actually exhibit shades of real journalism. I've never gone to either website looking to be informed but I know they publish things from time-to-time that actually fall within the realm of being worthy of public interest. Gawker and its affiliate sites have broken some very important stories. They've also done some very dumb poo poo and in life the bad almost always outweighs the good. Le Saboteur fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
It's good to see noted respected journalist Dave Meltzer agrees that nobody should be allowed to be happy about a good thing in their life because someone with fame and money had a bad thing happen to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
The powerless founder of paypal. Fighting against a media company worth about a fraction of him. Truly a David and Goliath story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Le Saboteur posted:Gawker and its affiliate sites have broken some very important stories. They've also did some very dumb poo poo and in life the bad almost always outweighs the good. Hell, just this week the British version had a very interesting article on the death of Lionhead. http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/06/09/how-fable-legends-took-down-lionhead
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
It's not unfair to say that for a long, long time, Gawker was a scummy rag, particularly during the time that AJ Daulerio was running it. But they also really cleaned up their act after they paid Daulerio to go the gently caress away. I mean, that story outing that Conde Nast executive was taken down like four hours after it went up, because Denton and the management team basically said, "What the gently caress is wrong with you," prompting Craggs and Read to throw a tantrum and quit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
No matter how hard and often you scumbags try, Patrick's going to bounce back from this  deal with it
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:No matter how hard and often you scumbags try, Patrick's going to bounce back from this Giant Bomb Flyover
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
vainman posted:Hogan, or anyone really, losing their case because they didn't have enough money is really bad and I'm not sure why people are trying to think of a way to make that happen Yea this is my issue here, it feels like if you remove the 'literal billionaire' and 'hur hur wrestleman' angles from this and approach it as 'a person got outside help to sue a company they genuinely felt wronged them in a very public and embarrassing way' and I don't know how many people would be on the side of 'we need to make it so it's never worth the effort to do anything but instantly settle with large companies' or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea this is my issue here, it feels like if you remove the 'literal billionaire' and 'hur hur wrestleman' angles from this and approach it as 'a person got outside help to sue a company they genuinely felt wronged them in a very public and embarrassing way' and I don't know how many people would be on the side of 'we need to make it so it's never worth the effort to do anything but instantly settle with large companies' or whatever Yeah if you ignore the actual context of this and replace all actors involved with formless writhing masses then it looks pretty different I agree
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:Yeah if you ignore the actual context of this and replace all actors involved with formless writhing masses then it looks pretty different I agree Right but every 'solution' to this situation would also exist for any other situation remotely like it. Like, you can't make the gently caress You Dude Who Made PayPal rule that only effects him or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Right but every 'solution' to this situation would also exist for any other situation remotely like it. Like, you can't make the gently caress You Dude Who Made PayPal rule that only effects him or whatever. You could design a sensible legal system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:Yeah if you ignore the actual context of this and replace all actors involved with formless writhing masses then it looks pretty different I agree Looks pretty much the same to me tbh
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Ok could someone please spell it out for my dumbfuck idiot brain? What exactly is the precedent being set by this case? Was there some sort thing built into the case where before it, rich people could not pay for other peoples' lawsuits, but if Hogan won, that became the law of the land? That is what people seem to be eluding to in the thread but it's so grounded in pigeon-legalese and rage against the machine lyrics that I can't make it out, probably because I am a dumbfuck, as previously noted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Angular Landbury posted:Ok could someone please spell it out for my dumbfuck idiot brain? What exactly is the precedent being set by this case? No you understand it perfectly
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Angular Landbury posted:Ok could someone please spell it out for my dumbfuck idiot brain? What exactly is the precedent being set by this case? There isn't any legal precedent set here, some people are just mad that the right to help others with their legal representation (which is a good thing) can also be used by people they don't like for possibly reasons they don't like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Hulk Hogan brings down another lovely multimillion dollar company. RIP
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Andrast posted:You could design a sensible legal system. That's such a broad, meaningless statement
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Dangersim posted:That'see such a big, meaningless statement Not really when there are plenty on countries where rich people can't sue companies out of existence and legal proceedings don't cost loving millions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Dangersim posted:That's such a broad, meaningless statement You could introduce public funding for civil suits and/or liquidate billionaires as a class
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
What about companies that post people's private sex tapes on the Internet is there a country where that's ok
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:You could introduce public funding for civil suits and/or liquidate billionaires as a class Ok now let's try to come with good ideas
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Great White Hope posted:There isn't any legal precedent set here, some people are just mad that the right to help others with their legal representation (which is a good thing) can also be used by people they don't like for possibly reasons they don't like. This is what it boils down to. Either you feel people have the right to outside help with their representation or you don't. It's actually a pretty important binary choice for a legal system to make and there's not really much 'well yes but gently caress Hulkster right guys?' room. Andrast posted:You could design a sensible legal system. oh, poo poo, yea I guess we could just do that. Why did no one else think of this? Just do the good thing, stop doing the bad thing, idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:
It's a revolutionary concept in a country where "don't poison drinking water" is a controversial statement
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Dangersim posted:What about companies that post people's private sex tapes on the Internet is there a country where that's ok Previously I would have said the US but thanks to Hulk Hogan everything is now fixed
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:It's a revolutionary concept in a country where "don't poison drinking water" is a controversial statement I don't think people think that's a controversial statement op
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
The ability to have a billionaire dictate an attorney's conduct to the point that he's acting in accordance with the desires of the billionaire rather than the best interests of his client, in exchange for money, is in fact a pretty problematic precedent which currently falls into a legal gray area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:It's a revolutionary concept in a country where "don't poison drinking water" is a controversial statement It's not so much that it's a revolutionary concept it's just a meaningless answer. Like you might as well just shout "GOOD THING" or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:The ability to have a billionaire dictate an attorney's conduct to the point that he's acting in accordance with the desires of the billionaire rather than the best interests of his client, in exchange for money, is in fact a pretty problematic precedent which currently falls into a legal gray area. Yeah, I was going to say there's suddenly been a lot of oversimplifications of this issue after the lawyer in this thread previously laid out the actual ethical issues in this particular case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:The ability to have a billionaire dictate an attorney's conduct to the point that he's acting in accordance with the desires of the billionaire rather than the best interests of his client, in exchange for money, is in fact a pretty problematic precedent which currently falls into a legal gray area. But the client's wishes were the same as the billionaire's wishes in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:The ability to have a billionaire dictate an attorney's conduct to the point that he's acting in accordance with the desires of the billionaire rather than the best interests of his client Do you have any evidence that this is what has occurred here Honest question Dangersim fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Andrast posted:But the client's wishes were the same as the billionaire's wishes in this case. That doesn't put aside the fact that the billionaire in question was controlling and putting conditions on a legal team trying a case he had nothing to do with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
fatherdog posted:The ability to have a billionaire dictate an attorney's conduct to the point that he's acting in accordance with the desires of the billionaire rather than the best interests of his client, in exchange for money, is in fact a pretty problematic precedent which currently falls into a legal gray area. See, this is a more interesting point than the PLUTOLIGARCHY stuff. Do you have anything I can read on this as it relates to the case? Legit interested.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:44
|
|