Hacker News Reader

Comment by baldfat | Hacker News Reader

Messed up lawsuit and I actually don't know what to think.

1) Gawker was garbage dwelling story makers. I am glad they aren't going to do stories anymore.

2) Who will it be the next time something happens like this will it be a actual journalist and good content producer that gets sued to death? Scared for journalist????

Also would be nice to see LifeHacker survive this.

View on HN

Well the hope is that the courts wouldn't rule against an actual journalist for doing his/her job in a lawsuit. I get the "slippery slope" argument but posting a video of Hulk Hogan having sex (taken and posted without his consent) doesn't really qualify as journalism in any way and they really deserved to lose.

But they weren't the only ones and I don't think they were even the first ones to do so. (At work no way I am researching if I am right) I HATE GAWKER but it does seem strange that no one else was sued for this.

They defied a court order to remove the tape.

The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court stayed the order:

Gawker appealed the injunction, and Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued an immediate stay, which prevented the injunction from going into effect. Eight months later, the appeals court issued a scathing opinion that overturned Campbell’s order on the grounds that the video was newsworthy and Gawker's publication of it was protected by the First Amendment.

Armed with the appeals court decision, Gawker went back to Campbell and asked her to dismiss the case, since the appeals court had just ruled that publishing the video was protected by the First Amendment. Campbell refused.

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/03/jury-awards-hulk...

The court doesn't even have to rule against the journalist for the legal costs to destroy a media organisation. By example, this exact thing happened to Mother Jones:

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-sued...

That's fucked up. But it's the same problem everywhere in the US - not just media. Looks like the whole system need an overhaul.

Or just implement Loser Pays.

Still wouldn't work. The loser wouldn't pay until the case is closed, and the company could go bankrupt in the meantime. Case in point, Gawker is widely expected to have their damages reduced on appeal, but it's already too late.

Legal fees are incredibly high right now partly because of frivolous lawsuits. Loser pays would drive down costs making bankruptcy a lot less likely. Besides, if this had been a pure 1st Amendment case, deep pockets like the ACLU could act like an insurance policy and pick up some of the day-to-day expenses, but the savings from not continuously defending yourself against frivolous lawsuits and getting reimbursed when you win would reduce the need for outside assistance.

How would you cap it? Could someone just spend ridiculous amounts of money to win a simple lawsuit and bankrupt the other party like that?

Nothing is capped. Because of the potential for paying twice as much to sue someone, only cases where the plaintiff has a good chance of winning make it to court, thereby putting less demand on legal services. Gawker was not bankrupted by their own legal fees, but by the damages they were ordered to pay out of their own pockets, so nothing is justifying a cap on what the loser must pay in terms of legal fees here. The main point of bringing up loser pays is to reduce the chance that a lawsuit with no chance of winning can bankrupt someone such as Mother Jones.

Again, what stops a litigant from using loser pays to bankrupt other parties?

At this point, I'm just going to enjoy it for what it is. Good prevailing over evil.

Enjoy the wins when they're around. You can never predict the future too well anyway.

I don't understand #2 (and I've heard it a lot). Theil with all his money was unable to sue/destroy them for a decade even with their despicable behaviour. It wasn't until they did something illegal (the Hogan case) that they went down. Is there really risk for journalists who don't break privacy laws?

Also would be nice to see LifeHacker survive this.

Hopefully the market niche of LifeHacker will be polyfilled quickly. Also hopefully, the market niche of most of the rest of Gawker won't.

Jalopnik is a pretty good car site too. Good community and more than just regurgitated press release car reviews.

Hopefully it finds a new home without too much blood loss.

I like Lifehacker and Jalopnik (except for their political posts). I used to like Gizmodo years ago, but they got too political for my taste back then. It would be nice to see Lifehacker and Jalopnik survive.

I also like The Consumerist, but it was sold off to Consumer Reports and was doing okay until it was hacked. Now it's only a shell of its former self. What really made that site was the user contributions, but that died off after they closed the comments after the attack.

If they had just reported on Hogan's affair without actually releasing the video, would they still have gotten sued?

This wouldn't happen to a good journalist because a good journalist wouldn't publish a stolen sex tape.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

1) Why do you think that Gawker will shut down? Someone will buy it at the auction and they have all reasons to continue to publish, maybe with better legal advice. It's still a valuable media property.

It wasn't "posted video ... sued out of existence"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com