As Gawker learned, media corporations are't above the law

thank you.

Looks like 1000 is not enough though. Next 'reminder' maybe place between <h2></h2>; 'blink' tag might not hurt either.

I mean, he's clearly joking if you read the transcript. He's an idiot for having even made that joke, but still.

I think that whole conversation is a perfect example of why you have to be extremely careful when making tasteless jokes, especially in situations we typically think of as fairly serious (e.g. court).

The jury probably didn't think highly of Gawker after that exchange, either.

> In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get away with, ethics or newsworthiness be damned.

C.f. also 'journalist shield' laws which give journalists special privilege not to testify that citizens in general do not have. As a matter of principle, I think that anyone should have the right to refuse to provide evidence to prosecute a case (I am okay with the idea of the defense being able to compel testimony); allowing some people to have such privilege but denying it to others sets a very bad precedent, akin to the old 'benefit of clergy.'

I'm genuinely interested in how this community views the demise of a site like gawker will have an actual effect on those like the NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc. ?

Gawker is not being destroyed because they broke the law. Many companies, including media companies, do that on the regular. Gawker is being destroyed because a billionaire didn't like them, and decided to devote enough time & money to destroy them.

Regardless of your opinion of Gawker, the precedent is that news publishers can successfully be destroyed if they make powerful enemies. Many news sites are already hesitant to report on powerful individuals, and now they are being proven that they were right to do so. For someone like me who believes that a free press is an important check on power, this is bad precedent to set.

Is the implication that Hogan should not have been able to prosecute his lawsuit? What if he got the same outcome by funding it himself?

>Gawker fucked up a lot. But our media landscape is worse off without it.

I disagree that we're clearly worse off. For a good explanation on why, this is a pretty good read:

https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato...

The thesis, for those less interested in buying the book, is that when we embraced blogs like Gawker and Buzzfeed as a source of news content, the quality of our news decreased drastically.

You went from sort of the New York Times subscription-based model, where people are subscribed already and your journalists can focus on the quality of your content, back to the days of "EXTRA! Read all about it," where everyone is just trying to be heard over the thousands of other available blogs.

So our headlines became clickbait, content became lies, and because it's so pervasive, there is little to no accountability.

The hogan case is important because it adds accountability.

If you lean to the Right at all, you see that this happens all the time, and has been happening for a very long time. There are always groups of people who try to set themselves up as an elite, who can never face justice for anything, and who can destroy anybody they feel like without consequences. America was set up so that it's harder for actual politicians to be truly elite, so it's more media figures and bureaucrats.

The real elite are leftists, but that doesn't mean they're the same as the left. Witness how almost the whole DNC lined up against Bernie Sanders.

This sort of thing happens all the time, to many arguably undeserving people. It's only getting attention because it's happening to an organization that was supposed to be part of the Elite. As such, I don't feel much sympathy for them.

The article was right on on this point. This quote:

> Gilles Wullus of the group Reporters Without Borders told the BBC that the Gawker case poses a dire threat to press freedom. “Journalism ethics should be taken care of by journalists themselves,” he said. “In case they do not, we think that nobody else can do it in their place, neither states nor governments; especially not wealthy individuals.”

Seriously?? Just like they say, can you imagine the uproar if somebody said the same thing about petroleum industry executives?

As a regular dude who was thinking way too much about a former college girlfriend. I want to thank Gawker for showing me a picture of her in Cabo with at least 30 dudes.

I don't want to get into a debate. She was just a product of life/business circumstances? I just remember a girl who who suddenly got depressed when other pretty girls were around, at work, or wherever. She was on a company vacation, but seeing her with so many seemingly desperate dudes, jerked me back into realty pretty quick. I never wanted a Amish girlfriend, but I didn't want a canieving, opportunist then, nor now. And yes--I guess it's a bit sexist? I had to include that last sentence. Why--just because.

She was a statistics/accounting major in college. She was always gauging her odds for seemingly everything. When I heard she got tired of San Francisco, and still wasen't married, I just had a hunch she would go to a place that she thought would up her her social desirability. I figured she thought Silicon Valley would be the place--a lot of ambitious white guys.

That's where she ended up. It was probally business related move, but I was so glad I saw her in that publication years ago. I believe it was called The Valley Wag in the day. It saved a lot of speculation, or what's the phrase--maybe regret over what could have been?

I think there is actually a major conflict of interest going on. If you look, many of the news organizations that are decrying the Gawker verdict either have current or past ties to Gawker or have close family/friends that do.

I would imagine they are a bit worried because they have been pretty immune from lawsuits because of cost and court ruling protecting newspapers from even spreading false statements. When people who can crush others with just words on a page lose their immunity, they get very, very nervous of all the stuff they have written in haste over the years.

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", campus activists are saying.

> There is going to be 40 others that pop up in its place and you can bet that they'll be more prepared to withstand justice shopping efforts.

What does that mean "justice shopping" ? are you implying that Hulk Hogan lawsuit was frivolous or he somehow bought judges with Thiel's money ? can you be more specific ?

I'll be frank, I would rather give you money to just let it die. Gawker isn't what the world needs.