Gawker Media founder to file for personal bankruptcy
reuters.com
reuters.com
On the other hand, I don't like Denton or Gawker because they have no ethics. I was personally harmed by them when they decided to make their hobby doxxing controversial reddit users, and I know someone whose life was completely destroyed by Gawker but didn't have the money to sue.
I'm also not a fan of the fact that a lot of their early content was literally them reposting reddit content without permission.
So if this were anyone else with any other media organization, I would totally be on their side and agree that this is a travesty of justice that Theil was able to fund this lawsuit.
But for Denton and Gawker? Good, they deserve to go down in flames.
Edit: I would like to add that some of those journalist friends work for Gawker Media, are upstanding, ethical, and wonderful people, and will most likely loose their jobs, and I feel terrible for them. It's just a few bad eggs at Gawker that ruined it for everyone, but it came from the top (Denton).
So I keep reading this argument but am having a hard time accepting it because it's acting like Thiel is somehow the first person to think of something like this. If you think this will become widespread as a result of Thiel's actions, why is it not widespread already? You could make the argument that media outlets (or really anyone) were just never made aware of who was actually financing lawsuits but I'm more than certain that if it was widespread that someone would have looked into it by now.
There are two different things here, and I'm not sure I understand all the issues.
1. The personal vendetta. I understand this. (At least, probably)
2. The posting -- without permission -- of a sex tape made without Hogan's knowledge and in a private location. This seems morally indefensible to me. This is where I get a bit lost as to people defending Gawker. Shouldn't posting such a video be illegal?
Yes, probably. The issue stems from the fact that someone else paid for the lawsuit, which is a moral gray area, and in fact was illegal for a long time, even before the US existed (in British common law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance
Yeah, no. NYTimes v. Sullivan determined that public figures sacrifice a good deal of their privacy when they when they enter the public sphere. For instance, the same such video of, say, a governor would certainly be newsworthy. Where it's unclear is to what degree is Hogan a public figure and whether the actual publishing of it, as opposed to just reporting on it, is constitutes newsworthiness.
In terms of lawsuit financing, it's perfectly legal. There's an entire industry devoted to third-party lawsuit financing – otherwise, poor victims of car attacks (or other consequences which injured their ability to work and earn) wouldn't be able to pursue personal injury claims.
Without it, only those with means could pursue legal recourse.
That would be violentacrez, right?
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/what-w...
Do not the girls and women whose privacy he was invading not deserve the same right to privacy?
I just said I don't feel bad because they were unethical in their journalism and caused real harm to people because of it (real people besides VA).
Is that really true? What legitimate media outlet thought this was about muzzling the press? Libel has never been allowed.
They are like a mob in this case.
You're obviously right, it's libel, full stop. And Hulk Hogan didn't win because he had Thiel money, he won because he was right, and if Gwaker would win, it would be because of money, and that would be something anormal.
That's fairly hyperbolic. The press tends to be defensive due to the long history of attacks it's had to withstand to do their jobs.
They also tend to be fairly expansive in defining what exactly their jobs are, e.g. demanding protections to overlook and ignore criminal behaviour that no other citizens have.
I'm not terribly sympathetic here: journalists should have exactly the same rights and responsibilities that every other citizen has, period.
Libel requires falsehood. That's not the case here.
I think Denton/Gawker were and are a net disservice to society. But they're also far from the worst or most egregious examples of the archetype of a say-anything-for-money tabloid.
What do others think of Thiel's hand in all this? On one hand, I respect it. Well-played, thus far. On the other hand, it isn't good that a select few (the extremely wealthy) can wield so much influence when other less wealthy people who may have been similarly wronged simply cannot. Equal opportunity and equal justice, etc. That lack of equality is likely a symptom of our costly and cumbersome legal system, though. Also, anyone think this will blow back on Thiel? Perhaps Denton can countersue? Perhaps behaving this way will have costly knock-on effects elsewhere in life or business?
I don't really understand all the ins and outs of chapter 11 bankruptcy (it is more commonly used by companies than individuals) but I don't think he is going to be able to retain all that much wealth if the judgment ends up standing. On top of that he'll have to pay all "disposable income" to creditors for five years.
It's also not fair that wealthy and powerful corporations (e.g. Gawker) can wield so much influence. I think the only thing the little guys can hope for are good big guys to do battle on their behalf.
Nothing blows on billionaires.
I don't think I would feel this way about a McCain or Romney supporter -- those I could put down to "reasonable people may differ". But Trump -- yikes! I'd have to think about it, hard.
I can imagine a "burn it down" strategem at play. By electing Trump, bet that no outright epic-level disaster will be created, but that ridiculous problems will manifest under such a Presidency so as to bring in to stark relief the maladies of our enormous government and the almost comical inefficacy of our democracy today. Try to springboard from there to the change you hope to create, in being able to say "clearly, our systems are broken. We need a new way forward."
Alternatively, can see a plan to dismantle one flailing party as a first step, with a follow-on plan to dismantle the other party subsequently, and thereby open the gate for a third (Libertarian?) party.
Alternatively, could see this as a means of stymying to some degree the criticism that SV tech companies and veterans attempt to distort political discourse toward liberalism. "You think Facebook distorts reality in favor of liberalism, and that most tech companies do the same, inadvertently or not? Well, look here! One of the most famous and influential of SV's modern Titans, and a Facebook board member no less, outrightly supporting Trump."
Or, perhaps this is a legitimate swing against liberalism, and against established parties and established political candidates, which would align with Thiel's stated political philosophy.
Or, perhaps the move is based on the sum of all of these partial probabilities, and others. But I suspect subtlety here in some form, and perhaps at least the delusion of a grand plan.
I don't think it matters Thiel funded it, I don't really see how that's different to a high profile lawyer volunteering or expecting Apple, Google etc to step in when Lodsys were being parasites the other year etc. The EFF funds plenty of stuff too I think. If the consequences were survivable or Hogan lost would anyone have cared Thiel backed it?
The tape was ruled not suitable for publishing a long time ago, when Gawker published "A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post. We Won't."
They were suitably outraged over leaked female celebrity nudes of course.
The whole Gawker vs Hulk Hogan saga just shows what a joke the whole system is. It's painful to live in this society and have to breathe the same air and survive on the same currency as these people.
Wouldn't that be a crime, if done just prior to filing for bankruptcy? I don't know the US legislation so well, but I would expect it to work that way.
(Over here (Finland), there is no personal bankruptcy in the same sense; debts stick even if debtor has no assets, though there is a sort-of-Chapter-13 arrangement with some expiry provisions in 15 years).