Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcruddy | Hacker News Reader

I don't have any issue with vengeance fueling a legal offensive. I also think that Gawker crossed a very real line when they outed him in 2007. What concerns me is one billionaire can bring down and effectively silence a media outlet quietly from behind the scenes.

View on HN

I'm not sure I would consider this him taking them down. The case has nothing to do with him beyond his money, and without the case his money wouldn't be doing anything here, so it's the case that's doing the work. He's just supporting it.

As a result of the size of the legal team's war chest they've removed language that would allow Gawker's insurers to pay any damages. This will hold Gawker liable and Gawker probably can't afford to bleed $140M without going under.

> As a result of the size of the legal team's war chest

I'm not sure what that has to do with it.

That struck many legal observers as odd, given that most lawyers seeking large payouts want to include claims that are insured against because doing so increases the chances of a settlement.

Lawyers seek large payouts? Isn't it the plaintiff that calls the shots? Hulk Hogan is already a millionaire (but not to the degree of the payout in this case), so it may not just be Peter Thiel that wanted Gawker to hurt. Some fairly damaging stuff about Hogan has surfaced because of the trial, which, surprise, was covered by Gawker[1] (and without a disclosure regarding the lawsuit until a later update).

1: http://gawker.com/hulk-hogan-refers-to-fucking-niggers-in-le...

If Gawker could settle and have their insurance company take the hit then Gawker itself would remain relatively unscathed. By preventing the insurance company from paying out, Hogan/Thiel have made it more difficult to win their case and more difficult to collect to monetary award. Also - by not settling Hogan's legal bills increase as the battle rages on. Gawker can outspend Hogan, but Gawker can't outspend Thiel.

Can Gawker outspend Hogan? He's reported to have $25 million. If Gawker can't take a hit of $140 million and survive, how much can they afford?

In the end, I don't think it really matters. If you did stuff your insurance doesn't cover and get sued for it, that's your fault. You don't get to decide how the other side responds. If your business model relies on this behavior, you should really be keeping this in mind. (These are generalizations. I'm not sure what Gawker is guilty of, if anything, and what their business model really consists of).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com