Slashdot Mirror
Gawker Files For Bankruptcy After Hulk Hogan Lawsuit (usatoday.com)
Gawker has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The move comes after the media house was ordered to pay up $140M to Hulk Hogan for publishing his sex tape. Gawker, which is known for its irreverent voice, is currently facing multiple lawsuits, backed by billionaire Peter Thiel, one of the people that Gawker has extensively reported on. USA Today reports: In its filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Gawker is seeking to reorganize under the bankruptcy protection and there's no indication, as of yet, that it will cease publication. Gawker listed estimated assets of $50 million to $100 million and liabilities of $100 million to $500 million. [...] Thiel's funding triggered concerns about the possibility of First Amendment rights being quashed by wealthy individuals' funding of third-party legal claims against media organizations.According to a separate report, Ziff Davis is interested in purchasing Gawker and various properties that it owns. Gawker media also runs Gizmodo, LifeHacker, and Deadspin among other popular publications.
I don't care one bit about some paparazzi revenge porn site going out of business. Yes, it is troublesome that this may have revenge for some semi valid journalism, but the real blight on the WWW are sites like this that exist to do nothing but make money off celebrity mishaps. It will be good for these parasites to get a real job.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Nobody gets up from the leg drop, they should have known that.
Justice may be blind, but she sure is greedy. Not that I'm a huge gawker fan, but clearly having a billion dollars lets you have your way in the courts. Had they posted a sex tape of some average Joe and/or not somehow pissed off Thiel, Mr. Average Joe would just have to live with it because he wouldn't have the money to fight it in court.
On the one hand I have no sympathy for Gawker and really don't mind seeing them go. On the other hand, it is deeply concerning that we may be in a situation where a billionaire can essentially destroy a company by funding lawsuits from other people. In the Hogan case it isn't clear to me if the jury knew that the lawsuit was being funded by Thiel at all, and this would be something that they should know. As a general rule, it seems like this sort of thing is a victory for the very powerful. After this, all media are going to think very carefully before doing any reporting on the very wealthy and be especially wary of reporting on anything Peter Thiel is doing. There's a clear chilling effect here.
What you gonna do, brother, when Hulkamania runs wild all over you?!?!
WTF has the First Amendment got to do with this? The First only stops the government from censoring you. I, or any other private individual or company, can still tell you to shut up.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
At a high level, sure, money shouldn't give you the ability to completely shut down voices you don't like.
But at the trial, Gawker seemed to both not take the trial seriously (the infamous 4 year old line) and simply treated it like another story they'd post to get clicks. Denton and Daulerio seemed to think they were above the entire fray until the judgment, at which point they turned the entire other way and started trying to rouse sympathy from their readership. They mishandled their own defense to the point of comedy and made the jury entirely unsympathetic. It's hard for me to think they didn't bring this on themselves.
I hope Deadspin and Jalopnik find new homes, there are some good writers for those two sites.
The Gawker site itself is trash. However, Gawker Media owns two of my favorite sites: Jalopnik and Gizmodo. I've noticed their content quality has been going down recently, I hope they keep going.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
... and nothing of value was lost.
Gawker, which is known for its irreverent voice
No, they were known for being scumsucking bottomfeeders, the worst combination of clickbait whores and shockjocks.
Thiel's funding triggered concerns about the possibility of First Amendment rights being quashed by wealthy individuals' funding of third-party legal claims against media organizations.
LOL, As opposed to owning them and having them spout nonsense? Like Murdochs "media" empire? It is "reality" shows and Fox "news" that made the demagogue Trump possible, but we should fear the one billionaire bankrolling wronged individuals sueing bottomfeeders. I repeat: LOL.
Who wrote this summary? Nick Denton?
Actually, they're all horrible people that should be launched into the Sun.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You could murder someone and get off for a fraction of that.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Crushing a media organization under the power of one's wallet is NOT standing up for free speech. Even if it's a shitty company that was actually just used as a pawn for other rich people.I'm torn between celebrating this as a great victory and mourning it as a blow to an important pillar of society. Gawker wasn't just shitty for its hypocrisy on a variety of topics but for some seriously evil acts, not the least of which are directly related to the lawsuits at hand. In the end all I can say is I'm glad it's over and the world has a moment's rest before a "crowd funded" Totally-Not-Gawker picks up the pieces and starts spewing vileness again.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The First Amendment doesn't enumerate a right to say whatever the hell one wants. There is a lot of speech that is not covered by the First Amendment, such as libel, slander, defamation of character, obscenity, dangerous or inciteful speech, and speech with the sole intent to deprive others of a right.
Gawker's entire defense, as I understand it, was that posting the sex tape was in the public interest because the subject was no average Joe.
When the AI revolution hits full swing, we're going to here the elite AI dissing everything old school with the comment as the vapid mutterings of some stupid regex. Even the computers will soon know how little comprehension goes into this kind of knee jerk retort.
Plus, no one is even going to watch the "average Joe" sex tape unless "average" Joe has a ginormous schlong (in truth, porn is fueled in equal measure by lust and envy, when it's not just about leering disgrace).
In summary, if your grandmother had wings, she'd be an airplane.
Thanks to Hulk/Thiel's victory, however, all of us average Joes are a little safer from media's prying eyes. And, given the government's history of buying from commercial suppliers the data, which it is not allowed to collect itself, from the government too.
And, should some other gav-gavker find our sex-life worthy of publication, it would be easier for us to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency. The world really did become a (slightly) better place thanks to this case.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It's a fine line. There's a public interest defence on Gawkers reporting on Thiel, IIRC a closet homosexual who publicly opposed homosexuality?
There was no public interest defence of the Hogan story and this kind of muck-spreading will not be missed.
At a high level, sure, money shouldn't give you the ability to completely shut down voices you don't like.
My GOD MAN thats UNAMERICAN!
But at the trial, Gawker seemed to both not take the trial seriously (the infamous 4 year old line) and simply treated it like another story they'd post to get clicks. Denton and Daulerio seemed to think they were above the entire fray until the judgment, at which point they turned the entire other way and started trying to rouse sympathy from their readership. They mishandled their own defense to the point of comedy and made the jury entirely unsympathetic. It's hard for me to think they didn't bring this on themselves.
They probably didn't pay their lawyers enough either, thats a surefire way to make the American courts come down like a ton of bricks on your head! Lawyers gotta get their cash.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
If a lawsuit is not fully funded by the claimant or not taken on a contingency by the attorney, the source of the funding should be disclosed. I think is specially important in the damages portion of the lawsuit.
Gawker did more than tabloid journalism. If you read the rest of the posts you'll see that's what actually got them in trouble. They've been calling out the shady practices of a member of the 1%. The entire lawsuit was a hit piece called out them. It's chilling. The worst thing is how Gawker didn't take the case seriously. That was because they didn't know there were under attack. They probably though the whole thing was a publicity stunt from Hogan...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is America, there are different rules for people with and without money. And its always been that way.
If you want everybody to follow the same set of rules, first you nationalize the legal profession and don't let them pick their own lawyer. Second you don't allow jurisdictions to benefit financially from fines or civil penalties. So if someone is fined for speeding, the county doesn't benefit from the process, the state above them does. If somebody damages public property, the city has to sue in a state court for those damages.
Nick Denton and Gawker Media were found guilty in a Court of Law of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Things they appear to have done many times before to many people. Most of the times they did these things, they got away with their terrible actions for various reasons. Mostly, they picked on people who could not afford to fight them. In these cases, it was Gawker who was harnessing the power of the wallet in, or out of the Courtroom.
Please don't cry about how unfair it was that Theil could bring down Gawker with his money. It was Gawker that has been playing that game all along.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
The dude used his wealth to abuse the already overloaded court system to even up a personal grudge.
Or do you think Thiel would have backed the Hulkmeister's suit out of civic duty if Gawker hadn't outed him as a hypocrite?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The problem is not the billionair, it's that lawyers routinely do this. 50% of the cost of flying is driven by liability lawsuits. None of those were brought by billionaires, but certainly were by predatory lawyers.
They WILL get revenge back on you, rightly or wrongly, frankly if somebody hurts somebody, they deserve all they get in the form of a bloody nose, like Gawker did. If you hurt somebody, it means you will have to watch your back the rest of your live, as they WILL be looking for an OPPERTUNITY to get pay back. As was done to Gawker. Welcome to life.
>money shouldn't give you the ability to completely shut down voices you don't like
That's not really what happened, though. They *broke the law* and got kicked hard for doing so. That's how it's supposed to work...
The Gawker et al were cheering the Erin Andrews verdict so if its good for the goose why not the gander?
If a news agency is in the wrong it doesn't matter one iota WHO funded any lawsuit to demonstrate their actions were wrong. Now, does this mean that other news agencies may be more careful about what they say/report about Thiele...sure BUT any GOOD news agency already knows they have to be careful in how they report about people/events and at the same time the actual 'good ones' have balls enough to publish news that the public needs to know not 'sensationalist clap-trap'.
A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post. We Won't.
Especially, don't brag online how you're going to ignore the judge.
No do-overs. This ain't kindergarten.
I thought there had to actually be damages?
Seriously who wants to see an Orange Florida Man in a sex tape?
As for causing emotional distress, could teenagers sue Orange Florida Man for emotional distress when he became a villain in his NWO days?
And how can someone tell emotional distresses inflicted on Orange Florida Man with the roid-rage and acting?
Nick Denton's asshole is up for auction ever day. For an extra $5, you can give him a dirty sancha.
They probably didn't pay their lawyers enough either, thats a surefire way to make the American courts come down like a ton of bricks on your head! Lawyers gotta get their cash.
The courts don't particularly care how, when, or where you pay your lawyers. They're overworked enough as it is, do you think the judge cared about the details of the financial agreement with the lawyers?
What they did care about was whether the videos Gawker violated Hogan's rights.
And you'd better believe they cared a lot when Gawker ignored court orders. They tend to come down hard on people who do that.
Gawker dug its own grave.
Now how does this court case make "average Joes" a little safer?
You are welcome on my lawn.
as much as I loathe Hulk hogan and his behavior, I agree that gawker is in the wrong here..
Im glad someone had the bawls to push something like this through.
I'm glad that individual had the backing to see this through..
I'm glad those Punk A$$ b1tche$ are going down..
Now that being said, Whats happening to the others???
How does this change the ladscape for those whom engage in poor behavior with regard to peoples personal lives, events or information..
Ya know I just saw a BIT by John Oliver about Debt collectors, could this be applied to their crap behavior?????
best to all,
...Well, bye.
Celebrities get less privacy protection *due* to the fact that they're celebrities. If a company is going to get smacked down to the tune of $140M for posting a *celebrity* sex tape, they're not going to get away with posting the sex tape of a private citizen.
"Gawker has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. " :) :(
"there's no indication, as of yet, that it will cease publication"
this is not a first amendment issue gwaker and there carelessness caused hogan to lose a huge contract and forever be flagged from doing the job he did all his life. thats the damages he was awarded for.
let the shitshow that is gawker die already
all the contenct is shyte in the last 5 years.
everything on kotaku is bought articles.
lifehacker hasn't offered any new lifehack since 2010!
I am not a lawyer, clearly, but it seems to me that Gawker isn't entitled to bankruptcy protection in this case just to dodge the court judgement since the court judgement is the ONLY REASON THAT THEY ARE INSOLVENT as a company.
Thiel and Hogan's legal team will have a filing before the bankruptcy court on Monday to throw out Gawker's petition and to stop the sale.
The appropriate filing would be for Chapter 7 Liquidation and a court appointed Receiver put in charge of Gawker (thus firing the management) for the purpose of preserving assets needed to pay the judgement.
Corporatism != Free Market
Terry Balloa's newfound wealth would be sent to the mother of that 'ex-friend' his son permanently crippled with his shitty heinous illegal driving (and not demanding his passenger was wearing a seatbelt.)
If we're going to start talking 'justice being done', there is a lot more of it to go around than gawkers usually lowbrow and usually non-life threatening crap.
I defend the first amendment just as I do the second amendment. Those rights are sacrosanct....
But there are "polite society" limits.
I don't condone outing someone's personal life just as I don't condone showing or displaying a firearm in public. It may be your right....but you probably shouldn't do it.
Just because you can - does not mean you should.
If you think Kotaku / io9 / Gizmodo and the rest of that trash are actually 'high quality', I have to conclude that you were a late arrival to the web.
/. IDs]
[Compares
No, in that case I hope you get over your recent head trauma.
I take no joy in the demise of a business - because, the poor schmoes at the frontline end up having to find work in a country that is at least...unsympathetic to the unemployed. However with the demise of Gawker I feel safe to say: "And nothing of value was lost".
[Re-lurks]
With liabilities greater than total assets Hulk is shit out luck. Hulk turned down substantial amount of money in refusing settlement offers. Hoping "his" lawyer funded by Thiel faces bar hearing for not representing his client best interests.
Those assholes should have been out of business back when they stole that iPhone prototype and tried to destroy the career of the engineer they stole it from. Peter Thiel has performed a great public service.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
People are acting like there was only one case of this type, and that the objective was to win the case on principle.
The entire point is that were talking about people with so much money that they can fund multiple case after case until the defendant runs out of money, regardless of what the defendant actually did. It is accidental that the defendant in this case actually lost.
Mother Jones won the suit filed by Frank VanderSloot, but was financially damaged: http://www.motherjones.com/kev...
How many "losses" like that would Frank VanderSloot have to suffer before Mother Jones was run out of business?
Gawker and its SJW affiliates are fascist scum.
I hope every single Gawker property is gutted by angry people with broken beer bottles. It's all garbage that deserves nothing less.
Citation?
Now how does this court case make "average Joes" a little safer?
You don't know what 'precedent' means,do you?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Second you don't allow jurisdictions to benefit financially from fines or civil penalties. So if someone is fined for speeding, the county doesn't benefit from the process, the state above them does. If somebody damages public property, the city has to sue in a state court for those damages.
Something along these lines is actually a legal requirement arising from the Bill of Rights, specifically the dual rights to ethical government and ethical practice of law (protected under the 9th and 10th Amendments, rights "retained by" and "reserved to" the people). Fines and penalties can't go into the budget of the government assessing them, as that represents ethical conflict of interest (even if the money is laundered to hide the conflict of interest by claims that it goes into a different 'part' of the budget, it's still unethical: money laundering does not make money clean).
But the lawyers depend on unethical practice of law for a living. The legal system is far more complex, confusing, and even contradictory then it needs to be, and that creates artificial demand for the services of lawyers, the same people who write, judge, and prosecute the laws. It's a huge unethical scam. The lawyers have huge influence over the selection of judges, as well, thanks to the corrupt nature of lobbying and campaign contributions in US politics (under rules created by the lawyers), so they ensure nobody gets selected who will rock the ethics boat. It's not an accident that tort reform hasn't happened, or that associations of lawyers are donating huge amounts of money to certain political organizations.
As a result, the requirement of ethical government is routinely ignored. Many governments in the USA are routinely breaking the law, and it seems little can be done about it. Not the first time in US history this has been the case, of course. Slavery and the Jim Crow laws provide classic examples from the past. Barring a massive civil rights movement or another Civil War, illegal conduct by government on a massive scale is likely to continue indefinitely.