The other side on this case certainly wasn't out for justice, that seems clear. They were out for blood and revenge. And they got it.
Gawker fucked up a lot. But our media landscape is worse off without it.
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.
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.
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?
Commenting on the legality of what Gawker or Hogan did is above my pay-grade. But a nine-figure judgment that might be overturned but has nevertheless destroyed the company is not a just response to the purported crime.
How can it not chill any journalistic organization?
so I don't know if they are the same "community"