Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media News

Gawker Files For Bankruptcy After Hulk Hogan Lawsuit (usatoday.com) 284

Gawker has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The move comes after the media house was ordered to pay up $140M to Hulk Hogan for publishing his sex tape. Gawker, which is known for its irreverent voice, is currently facing multiple lawsuits, backed by billionaire Peter Thiel, one of the people that Gawker has extensively reported on. USA Today reports: In its filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Gawker is seeking to reorganize under the bankruptcy protection and there's no indication, as of yet, that it will cease publication. Gawker listed estimated assets of $50 million to $100 million and liabilities of $100 million to $500 million. [...] Thiel's funding triggered concerns about the possibility of First Amendment rights being quashed by wealthy individuals' funding of third-party legal claims against media organizations.According to a separate report, Ziff Davis is interested in purchasing Gawker and various properties that it owns. Gawker media also runs Gizmodo, LifeHacker, and Deadspin among other popular publications.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gawker Files For Bankruptcy After Hulk Hogan Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • Revenge p0rn (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @01:45PM (#52290351) Homepage Journal
    I don't care one bit about some paparazzi revenge porn site going out of business. Yes, it is troublesome that this may have revenge for some semi valid journalism, but the real blight on the WWW are sites like this that exist to do nothing but make money off celebrity mishaps. It will be good for these parasites to get a real job.
    • Re:Revenge p0rn (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:00PM (#52290463)

      Yes, it is troublesome that this may have revenge for some semi valid journalism

      This all started when Gawker outed Peter Thiel for being gay. I don't see how that is "valid journalism". They have a 1st Amendment right to do what they did, but they are still scum for preying on someone's private life. What happened with HH went way over the line. They got what they deserved.

      • Re:Revenge p0rn (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:39PM (#52290775)

        Peter Thiel, beside being a bazillionaire, is also a high-level Republican donor and works to squelch gay rights while being in the closet himself. That in itself makes it newsworthy. Then there's the American trope that anything a rich man does is newsworthy.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          How dare a gay person not support the 'gay agenda' set out for him. Feminists do this too. They call women who want the traditional housewife role 'gender traitors.'

    • Re:Revenge p0rn (Score:4, Insightful)

      by xevioso ( 598654 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:06PM (#52290503)

      But you might care about the excellent sub-sires operated by Gawker, including Kotaku.com, io9.com, gizmodo.com, and others. These sites are actually high quality, but their existence is predicated on the fact that Gawker.com itself gets many more views. So it would truly be a shame if these other sites disappeared. Although I suspect many of the commentariat here would shed no tears if Jezebel.com went out of business.

      • by Fragnet ( 4224287 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:07PM (#52290515)
        Kotaku? Really? Did your mother hit you over the head with a spade?
        • by xevioso ( 598654 )

          So you don't like video games? They report on video games. What's not to like?

          • Re: Revenge p0rn (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            their SJW feminazi propaganda about games. same thing for gizmodo and io9. fuck those guys for trying to inject their sexual politics in every goddamn thing AND moderating out dissenting opinions. may they rot in a shallow grave.

          • by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
            kotaku is utter shit
      • by DRMShill ( 1157993 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:32PM (#52290713)

        Oh no not kotaku! Now how will I know if the new Fallout game reinforces rape culture and the marginalization of the trans community.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        But you might care about the excellent sub-sires operated by Gawker, including Kotaku.com, io9.com, gizmodo.com, and other

        Oh, I care. The best part of the Gawker bankruptcy is the likely death of the corrupt SJW pustule Kotaku. Their worse tham Jezebel, as no one is confused into thinking Jezebel is legitimate.

      • Well, those sites (and I agree they're good) seem to be what Ziff Davis are interested in. With a bit of luck they'll survive.

        I'm really much more bothered here about the fact a millionaire can throw around money like this to shut down a news site, however lousy, that he doesn't like. Yes, it's Gawker today, but who knows who the next victim will be?

        • Well, Sheldon adelson bought the Las Vegas newspaper that was always criticizing him. Surely that's 10x worse than gawker. Bezels bought WaPo, but I don't know the impact of that.

      • The only Gawker affiliates I have personal knowledge of are Deadspin and Kotaku, which are both trash.
    • Re: Revenge p0rn (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jeffasselin ( 566598 ) <cormacolinde@@@gmail...com> on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:43PM (#52290799) Journal

      Gawker is a terrible bottom feeder. But when the next billionaire gets pissed at Slashdot for reporting on how his newfangled techo-marvel is a POS, and forces it into bankruptcy and closure, you might care more.

      This is not about Gawker anymore, this is about a billionaire using his money and influence to destroy someone using the legal system as a proxy.

      • Re: Revenge p0rn (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:56PM (#52290895)

        Justice being done is not "using the legal system as a proxy." If he was using his wealth to keep Gawker tied up in court until they were bankrupt, that would be wrong, but that's not what he was doing. He was funding a very valid lawsuit, which the court agreed was valid.

        Gawker's bankruptcy is not the result of a billionaire abusing his position; its a result of their own behaviour. I for one would quite like to see more billionaires funding lawsuits against the scumbag elements of the media.

      • Re: Revenge p0rn (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @03:05PM (#52290945) Journal

        Gawker is a terrible bottom feeder. But when the next billionaire gets pissed at Slashdot for reporting on how his newfangled techo-marvel is a POS, and forces it into bankruptcy and closure, you might care more.

        Gawker got curb-checked for invasion of privacy by posting what is basically revenge porn. In order for your warning to come true, Slashdot would have to do something similar, and I for one do *not* want to see a Steve Ballmer Sex Tape, y'dig?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by phorm ( 591458 )

          It wasn't even posting the material that probably did them in, but their entirely unrepentant attitude about doing so (I believe there was even something about a court-order being ignored).

      • Re: Revenge p0rn (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @03:09PM (#52290969)

        What a pile of crap. Gawker was destroyed by their own actions. Period. 'The billionaire' did not publish the sex tapes. He did not ignore court orders to take them down. The only thing his money did was allow a wronged person to get redress. I guess in your ideal world a wronged person should have no recourse if he can't afford it on his own.

      • Re: Revenge p0rn (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tharkkun ( 2605613 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @03:25PM (#52291089)

        Gawker is a terrible bottom feeder. But when the next billionaire gets pissed at Slashdot for reporting on how his newfangled techo-marvel is a POS, and forces it into bankruptcy and closure, you might care more.

        This is not about Gawker anymore, this is about a billionaire using his money and influence to destroy someone using the legal system as a proxy.

        Not when Gawker releases private data, videos, etc without the permission of the person being filmed. We're all UP IN ARMS about the FBI, NSA, CIA doing illegal wiretapping, recording, videotaping when they don't even view the damn data but suddenly we're okay with Gawker buying illegally recorded footage and releasing it for ad revenue. There's something really wrong with America.

      • by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

        Wait, you think rich people adding their money to their weight to throw around is something new and thus noteworthy?

      • Re: Revenge p0rn (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Friday June 10, 2016 @05:31PM (#52292025) Homepage Journal

        This is not about Gawker anymore, this is about a billionaire using his money and influence to destroy someone using the legal system as a proxy.

        Your actual complaint there is that the legal system is too expensive for even Hulk Hogan to afford, much less Gawker's other victims. If there were true justice, Hogan never would have needed Thiel's help. Thiel would have had no power in the situation.

        But make no mistake - Gawker is the entity that fucked itself royally; Thiel just provided the lube.

    • Re:Revenge p0rn (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @03:41PM (#52291183)

      This couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of worthless parasites!

  • Nobody gets up from the leg drop, they should have known that.
  • Justice is blind (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pseudorand ( 603231 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @01:46PM (#52290359)

    Justice may be blind, but she sure is greedy. Not that I'm a huge gawker fan, but clearly having a billion dollars lets you have your way in the courts. Had they posted a sex tape of some average Joe and/or not somehow pissed off Thiel, Mr. Average Joe would just have to live with it because he wouldn't have the money to fight it in court.

    • Re:Justice is blind (Score:4, Informative)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @01:53PM (#52290403)

      Bankrupt doesn't mean going out of business. If the bankruptcy goes to plan, they can stay in business however now owe the victors a dime.

      • by flink ( 18449 )

        Bankrupt doesn't mean going out of business. If the bankruptcy goes to plan, they can stay in business however now owe the victors a dime.

        Until Thiel buys up their debt and liquidates them, I suppose.

    • Re:Justice is blind (Score:5, Informative)

      by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @01:57PM (#52290433) Homepage

      It wasn't just that.

      It helped a lot that Gawker had complete morons testifying for their side, which managed to make themselves look completely unsympathetic without any assistance. There's a valuable lesson here: don't be a snarky asshole in court. People might have to hold their tongue when they're on your website and you make the rules, but it's ill advised when you're the one in the vulnerable position.

      And there's that the whole mess made Hogan lose a very lucrative contract, and he got awarded damages for that. Obviously it costs less to just embarrass an average joe than if your actions make somebody lose on earning millions.

    • Had they posted a sex tape of some average Joe

      Gawker's entire defense, as I understand it, was that posting the sex tape was in the public interest because the subject was no average Joe.

      When the AI revolution hits full swing, we're going to here the elite AI dissing everything old school with the comment as the vapid mutterings of some stupid regex. Even the computers will soon know how little comprehension goes into this kind of knee jerk retort.

      Plus, no one is even going to watch the "average Joe" sex t

      • by epine ( 68316 )

        s/here/hear

        I guess I deserved it.

      • Gawker's entire defense, as I understand it, was that posting the sex tape was in the public interest

        I don't know about public interest, but it was pretty funny seeing poor pitiful Hulk Hogan boning the wife of a friend who gave him permission to do so. With a rag on his head. Many of you may be too young to know this, but Hulk Hogan was at one time a pretty big celebrity. Now he's gotta get permission from Bubba the Love Sponge to bang some bony old skank.

        And the engine of America's success runs on bui

    • Had they posted a sex tape of some average Joe and/or not somehow pissed off Thiel, Mr. Average Joe would just have to live with it because he wouldn't have the money to fight it in court.

      Thanks to Hulk/Thiel's victory, however, all of us average Joes are a little safer from media's prying eyes. And, given the government's history of buying from commercial suppliers the data, which it is not allowed to collect itself [alternet.org], from the government too.

      And, should some other gav-gavker find our sex-life worthy of pub

      • Thanks to Hulk/Thiel's victory, however, all of us average Joes are a little safer from media's prying eyes.

        Now how does this court case make "average Joes" a little safer?

    • by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:07PM (#52290519) Journal

      If it was some average joe then Gawker wouldn't have made a lot of money in web traffic off of the video. If it was some average joe then no one in their personal circles or employers would know or find out if it was on some web site, because it wasn't plastered all over the national news alerting everyone.

    • by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:11PM (#52290553)

      You have it backwards. The problem is NOT that someone with a billion dollars can 'have their eay in the courts', it is that it REQUIRED someone with a billion dollars to get these assholes to respect the rights of others.

    • Maybe they shouldnt post sex tapes of people, and then keep them up when ordered by a court to take them down. Regardless of who was bankrolling the lawsuit its their fault.
    • Re: Justice is blind (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jmac_the_man ( 1612215 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:57PM (#52290899)

      Justice may be blind, but she sure is greedy. Not that I'm a huge gawker fan, but clearly having a billion dollars lets you have your way in the courts. Had they posted a sex tape of some average Joe and/or not somehow pissed off Thiel, Mr. Average Joe would just have to live with it because he wouldn't have the money to fight it in court.

      I don't think you understand the argument you think you're making.

      Thiel thinks Gawker is a horrible and scummy organization because they invaded his privacy. (Thiel is gay, and Gawker outed him.) So Thiel is paying the legal bills for several plantiffs (most prominently Hogan) who are suing Gawker because Gawker also invaded their privacy. If Thiel destroys Gawker, they won't be able to violate anyone's privacy, whether they're rich like Thiel or poor like "Mr. Average Joe" or some of the plaintiffs Thiel is funding.

      The argument I think you're trying to make is that Gawker's conduct should be protected by the First Amendment, and because Hogan's lawyers were being paid by a rich guy (Thiel), Hogan won anyway. The thinking here would be that any chip in the First Amendment weakens it, so the courts can't punish Gawker for posting an illicitly recorded sex tape that doesn't have news value.

      But the way you said it the first time makes it sound like you think the problem is Thiel is treating Gawker's victims unfairly by picking and choosing which ones to bankroll. Rather than, you know, Gawker treating its victims unfairly by posting illicitly recorded sex tapes of them.

  • Mixed blessing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @01:51PM (#52290387) Homepage
    On the one hand I have no sympathy for Gawker and really don't mind seeing them go. On the other hand, it is deeply concerning that we may be in a situation where a billionaire can essentially destroy a company by funding lawsuits from other people. In the Hogan case it isn't clear to me if the jury knew that the lawsuit was being funded by Thiel at all, and this would be something that they should know. As a general rule, it seems like this sort of thing is a victory for the very powerful. After this, all media are going to think very carefully before doing any reporting on the very wealthy and be especially wary of reporting on anything Peter Thiel is doing. There's a clear chilling effect here.
    • Re:Mixed blessing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10, 2016 @01:55PM (#52290419)

      it is deeply concerning that we may be in a situation where a billionaire can essentially destroy a company by funding lawsuits from other people

      That's not really concerning at all considering they were definitely guilty and deserved everything they got if not far worse. The real problem is that if Thiel and a rich celebrity like Hulk weren't involved Gawker probably would have gotten away with it.

      • Actually, they're all horrible people that should be launched into the Sun.
      • Is there a practical difference between this and crowdfunding the defense or a site or the eff defending a patent troll lawsuit? Others paying for legal services. Granted Gawker got what they deserved as a result of their terrible reporting and editorial standards but while I don't agree with Thiel on much his ability to fund others legal issues is what it is.
        • Granted Gawker got what they deserved

          Everybody in this case got what they deserved. Thiel got outed as a hypocrite, Hogan got outed as a desperate has-been, and Gawker got outed as a rag.

          Fortunately, everybody already knew Gawker was a rag, Hogan was a pitiful has-been and Thiel was a self-hating gay man. The only thing that will change is that someone new will own Gawker and make money as they continue to ply their (very popular) trash.

    • Re:Mixed blessing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:01PM (#52290467) Homepage Journal

      In the Hogan case it isn't clear to me if the jury knew that the lawsuit was being funded by Thiel at all, and this would be something that they should know.

      Why does that matter? I'd say a trial should go on the facts of the case, not facts around the case.

      But then unlike you I don't have a J.D. from DeVry.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I think you are being really unfair to Mr. Thiel, a true American Hero.

      Incidentally, and apropos of nothing... does anyone have a list of other companies Mr. Thiel dislikes? If possible I'd like to cash in ^w^w^w help mete out justice to another despicable corporation.

    • Re:Mixed blessing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:03PM (#52290487)

      In the Hogan case it isn't clear to me if the jury knew that the lawsuit was being funded by Thiel at all, and this would be something that they should know.

      The jury should decide the case based on the facts presented in court. Who is funding it is not relevant.

    • Re:Mixed blessing (Score:4, Interesting)

      by amicusNYCL ( 1538833 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:22PM (#52290621)

      On the other hand, it is deeply concerning that we may be in a situation where a billionaire can essentially destroy a company by funding lawsuits from other people.

      Why is that concerning? If a company does something which a jury finds to be illegal, why does it matter who pays the lawyers?

      After this, all media are going to think very carefully before doing any reporting on the very wealthy and be especially wary of reporting on anything Peter Thiel is doing.

      If someone does something wrong then journalists are going to report on it. Hopefully what "journalists" will think twice about is reporting on the private sex lives of other people. Our society is not enriched in any way by knowing whether or not some businessman is gay or straight, especially if that person doesn't discuss his own sexuality in public.

    • The jury should not need to know who is funding it. They should be only paying attention to the facts in the case. The fact that the sex tape existed may pass the 'public interest/news' test, but the actual video does not. If it did, then sites could just post full length movies and say they are showing them because it serves the public to do so.

    • Re:Mixed blessing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:38PM (#52290765) Homepage
      I see your trenchant analysis has totally ignored the fact that Gawker was very clearly in the wrong the entire time. When presented with an opportunity to repent, they laughed and doubled down on their despicable behavior. It's a good thing that the billionaire came along, otherwise the victim in this case wouldn't have been able to have his day in court. The good guys won, the bad guys lost. That's how it's supposed to happen.
      • If you think that's what happened then that's also not a good sign. If one uses your versions of things, then a legitimate victim can't get restitution unless they have a billionaire backing them?
    • Re:Mixed blessing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by steveha ( 103154 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:56PM (#52290893) Homepage

      it is deeply concerning that we may be in a situation where a billionaire can essentially destroy a company by funding lawsuits from other people

      I would agree with you if I thought that the lawsuit was without merit. Gawker would have been safe from Thiel if they hadn't opened themselves up to a ruinous lawsuit. They horribly invaded Hulk Hogan's privacy to sell ad clicks; there was less than zero journalistic merit in what they did to Hulk Hogan. So I really am not sad that they lost in court, and I don't care who paid the lawyers on Hulk Hogan's side.

      I also think there was less than zero journalistic merit in the way Gawker treated Thiel. So Gawker brought this upon itself two ways: it harassed and bullied Thiel, and then published the Hulk Hogan sex tape.

      The moral of the story is: freedom of the press is not a license to harass and humiliate people.

    • In the Hogan case it isn't clear to me if the jury knew that the lawsuit was being funded by Thiel at all

      And if they did know they should be instructed to completely ignore this fact when deliberating on their verdict and focus on the person who lost a very very lucrative multi-million dollar contract... which they did and he was awarded damages for.

      Who cares who funds the lawyers? If someone had a huge agenda against Gawker that doesn't change what they did or how they should be punished for it.

      • It goes to Hogan's credibility as a witness, which was a major part of the case. At minimum, it should have been disclosed early in the case to the judge so he could have decided if it was relevant enough for the jury to hear it.
  • 1st Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @01:54PM (#52290409) Journal

    WTF has the First Amendment got to do with this? The First only stops the government from censoring you. I, or any other private individual or company, can still tell you to shut up.

    • WTF has the First Amendment got to do with this? The First only stops the government from censoring you. I, or any other private individual or company, can still tell you to shut up.

      Aren't the courts part of the government?

      Any restriction on your speech, even those you agree to as part of a contract, have to be enforced by courts and are thus subject to the first amendment.

      I think the only time when first amendment is generally misapplied is when a non-government organization censors, such as a message board deleting posts. Even then there's ways in which the first amendment comes up.

      • Re:1st Amendment? (Score:4, Informative)

        by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:24PM (#52290651)

        Wrong. The First does not say 'the goverment shall have no involvement in any freedom of speech issues', it says 'Congress shall make no law...'. The Courts are not Congress, and the Courts were not created by Congress, and the Courts are not controlled by Congress,

        • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

          Wrong. The First does not say 'the goverment shall have no involvement in any freedom of speech issues', it says 'Congress shall make no law...'. The Courts are not Congress, and the Courts were not created by Congress, and the Courts are not controlled by Congress,

          The reason the First says that is that the courts do not -create- law. There's no reason for the First Amendment to say that "Congress and the Courts shall make no law.." because that's not the courts' function. They can certainly rule on whether laws that Congress created conflict with the First Amendment and strike them down if needed.

          • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

            The courts certainly do create law. Read any transcript from a civil trial and you will see loads of references to other cases and why or why not THAT particular law should apply in this case. If Congress (or other jurisdictions) made all the law, all that would be required is a reference to statute XYZ.

            The law made by courts is called Common Law, and is the basis for pretty much all civil law.

  • by FireballX301 ( 766274 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @01:54PM (#52290413) Journal
    At a high level, sure, money shouldn't give you the ability to completely shut down voices you don't like.

    But at the trial, Gawker seemed to both not take the trial seriously (the infamous 4 year old line) and simply treated it like another story they'd post to get clicks. Denton and Daulerio seemed to think they were above the entire fray until the judgment, at which point they turned the entire other way and started trying to rouse sympathy from their readership. They mishandled their own defense to the point of comedy and made the jury entirely unsympathetic. It's hard for me to think they didn't bring this on themselves.

    I hope Deadspin and Jalopnik find new homes, there are some good writers for those two sites.
    • At a high level, sure, money shouldn't give you the ability to completely shut down voices you don't like.

      My GOD MAN thats UNAMERICAN!

      But at the trial, Gawker seemed to both not take the trial seriously (the infamous 4 year old line) and simply treated it like another story they'd post to get clicks. Denton and Daulerio seemed to think they were above the entire fray until the judgment, at which point they turned the entire other way and started trying to rouse sympathy from their readership. They mishandled their own defense to the point of comedy and made the jury entirely unsympathetic. It's hard for me to think they didn't bring this on themselves.

      They probably didn't pay their lawyers enough either, thats a surefire way to make the American courts come down like a ton of bricks on your head! Lawyers gotta get their cash.

      • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

        They probably didn't pay their lawyers enough either, thats a surefire way to make the American courts come down like a ton of bricks on your head! Lawyers gotta get their cash.

        The courts don't particularly care how, when, or where you pay your lawyers. They're overworked enough as it is, do you think the judge cared about the details of the financial agreement with the lawyers?

        What they did care about was whether the videos Gawker violated Hogan's rights.
        And you'd better believe they cared a lot when Gawker ignored court orders. They tend to come down hard on people who do that.
        Gawker dug its own grave.

  • by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @01:54PM (#52290415) Journal
    The Gawker site itself is trash. However, Gawker Media owns two of my favorite sites: Jalopnik and Gizmodo. I've noticed their content quality has been going down recently, I hope they keep going.
  • Gawker bankruptcy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ... and nothing of value was lost.

    • Gawker did more than tabloid journalism. If you read the rest of the posts you'll see that's what actually got them in trouble. They've been calling out the shady practices of a member of the 1%. The entire lawsuit was a hit piece called out them. It's chilling. The worst thing is how Gawker didn't take the case seriously. That was because they didn't know there were under attack. They probably though the whole thing was a publicity stunt from Hogan...
  • You could murder someone and get off for a fraction of that.

  • Crushing a media organization under the power of one's wallet is NOT standing up for free speech. Even if it's a shitty company that was actually just used as a pawn for other rich people.I'm torn between celebrating this as a great victory and mourning it as a blow to an important pillar of society. Gawker wasn't just shitty for its hypocrisy [imgur.com] on [fjcdn.com] a [imgur.com] variety [pando.com] of [observer.com] topics [reason.com] but for some seriously evil [imgur.com] acts, not the least of which are directly related to the lawsuits at hand. In the end all I can say is I'm glad it'
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:10PM (#52290549)

      You can't, though. If the case had not been valid, it would not have bankrupted them.

      They also had the option to obey the court's orders, which they elected not to do.

      They have only themselves to blame here. Inasmuch as this is chilling to those who would steal sex tapes and set up a revenge porn site... good riddance. I could justify considering revenge porn obscene, which would strip all first amendment and copyright protections from that specific speech.

  • by twmcneil ( 942300 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @02:26PM (#52290671)
    Nick Denton and Gawker Media were found guilty in a Court of Law of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Things they appear to have done many times before to many people. Most of the times they did these things, they got away with their terrible actions for various reasons. Mostly, they picked on people who could not afford to fight them. In these cases, it was Gawker who was harnessing the power of the wallet in, or out of the Courtroom.

    Please don't cry about how unfair it was that Theil could bring down Gawker with his money. It was Gawker that has been playing that game all along.
  • "Gawker has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. " :)
    "there's no indication, as of yet, that it will cease publication" :(

  • this is not a first amendment issue gwaker and there carelessness caused hogan to lose a huge contract and forever be flagged from doing the job he did all his life. thats the damages he was awarded for.
  • I am not a lawyer, clearly, but it seems to me that Gawker isn't entitled to bankruptcy protection in this case just to dodge the court judgement since the court judgement is the ONLY REASON THAT THEY ARE INSOLVENT as a company.

    Thiel and Hogan's legal team will have a filing before the bankruptcy court on Monday to throw out Gawker's petition and to stop the sale.

    The appropriate filing would be for Chapter 7 Liquidation and a court appointed Receiver put in charge of Gawker (thus firing the management) for

  • by radarskiy ( 2874255 ) on Friday June 10, 2016 @05:55PM (#52292205)

    People are acting like there was only one case of this type, and that the objective was to win the case on principle.

    The entire point is that were talking about people with so much money that they can fund multiple case after case until the defendant runs out of money, regardless of what the defendant actually did. It is accidental that the defendant in this case actually lost.

    Mother Jones won the suit filed by Frank VanderSloot, but was financially damaged: http://www.motherjones.com/kev... [motherjones.com]

    How many "losses" like that would Frank VanderSloot have to suffer before Mother Jones was run out of business?

If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars. -- J. Paul Getty

Working...