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.

28 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Revenge p0rn by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Revenge p0rn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it is troublesome that this may have revenge for some semi valid journalism

      This all started when Gawker outed Peter Thiel for being gay. I don't see how that is "valid journalism". They have a 1st Amendment right to do what they did, but they are still scum for preying on someone's private life. What happened with HH went way over the line. They got what they deserved.

    2. Re:Revenge p0rn by xevioso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But you might care about the excellent sub-sires operated by Gawker, including Kotaku.com, io9.com, gizmodo.com, and others. These sites are actually high quality, but their existence is predicated on the fact that Gawker.com itself gets many more views. So it would truly be a shame if these other sites disappeared. Although I suspect many of the commentariat here would shed no tears if Jezebel.com went out of business.

    3. Re:Revenge p0rn by Fragnet · · Score: 4, Funny

      Kotaku? Really? Did your mother hit you over the head with a spade?

    4. Re:Revenge p0rn by DRMShill · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh no not kotaku! Now how will I know if the new Fallout game reinforces rape culture and the marginalization of the trans community.

    5. Re:Revenge p0rn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Peter Thiel, beside being a bazillionaire, is also a high-level Republican donor and works to squelch gay rights while being in the closet himself. That in itself makes it newsworthy. Then there's the American trope that anything a rich man does is newsworthy.

    6. Re: Revenge p0rn by jeffasselin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Gawker is a terrible bottom feeder. But when the next billionaire gets pissed at Slashdot for reporting on how his newfangled techo-marvel is a POS, and forces it into bankruptcy and closure, you might care more.

      This is not about Gawker anymore, this is about a billionaire using his money and influence to destroy someone using the legal system as a proxy.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    7. Re: Revenge p0rn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Justice being done is not "using the legal system as a proxy." If he was using his wealth to keep Gawker tied up in court until they were bankrupt, that would be wrong, but that's not what he was doing. He was funding a very valid lawsuit, which the court agreed was valid.

      Gawker's bankruptcy is not the result of a billionaire abusing his position; its a result of their own behaviour. I for one would quite like to see more billionaires funding lawsuits against the scumbag elements of the media.

    8. Re: Revenge p0rn by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gawker is a terrible bottom feeder. But when the next billionaire gets pissed at Slashdot for reporting on how his newfangled techo-marvel is a POS, and forces it into bankruptcy and closure, you might care more.

      Gawker got curb-checked for invasion of privacy by posting what is basically revenge porn. In order for your warning to come true, Slashdot would have to do something similar, and I for one do *not* want to see a Steve Ballmer Sex Tape, y'dig?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    9. Re: Revenge p0rn by bws111 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What a pile of crap. Gawker was destroyed by their own actions. Period. 'The billionaire' did not publish the sex tapes. He did not ignore court orders to take them down. The only thing his money did was allow a wronged person to get redress. I guess in your ideal world a wronged person should have no recourse if he can't afford it on his own.

    10. Re: Revenge p0rn by Tharkkun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gawker is a terrible bottom feeder. But when the next billionaire gets pissed at Slashdot for reporting on how his newfangled techo-marvel is a POS, and forces it into bankruptcy and closure, you might care more.

      This is not about Gawker anymore, this is about a billionaire using his money and influence to destroy someone using the legal system as a proxy.

      Not when Gawker releases private data, videos, etc without the permission of the person being filmed. We're all UP IN ARMS about the FBI, NSA, CIA doing illegal wiretapping, recording, videotaping when they don't even view the damn data but suddenly we're okay with Gawker buying illegally recorded footage and releasing it for ad revenue. There's something really wrong with America.

    11. Re: Revenge p0rn by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What if that was Hogan's intent also and he really doesn't care about the money?

      Anyways, it was gawker's own fault. They published it, they refused to take it down when asked and ordered by a judge. I don't care if Hogan borrowed money or gave head to get the lawyer help, if he didn't have a case, he would not have won.

    12. Re:Revenge p0rn by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Peter didn't do anything wrong by helping him. He was, after all, highly motivated. After all free speech protects you from being silenced by the government. Not someone with lots of money and thus power.

      It set a pretty dangerous precedent, though. Mess with the rich and get crushed by the weight of their resources.

      Any intelligent billionaire should now realize that all it takes to secure yourself against bad press is to make it known that you'll go scorched earth on anyone who releases a story you don't like, bankrolling anyone willing to start a lawsuit against that organization.

      It is completely within the law, just like the press is within their 1st Amendment rights to publish negative stories (within reason - i.e. libel and slander laws still apply), but it brings with it the death of free press, just as much as if the 1st was repealed.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  2. Justice is blind by pseudorand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Justice is blind by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Informative

      It wasn't just that.

      It helped a lot that Gawker had complete morons testifying for their side, which managed to make themselves look completely unsympathetic without any assistance. There's a valuable lesson here: don't be a snarky asshole in court. People might have to hold their tongue when they're on your website and you make the rules, but it's ill advised when you're the one in the vulnerable position.

      And there's that the whole mess made Hogan lose a very lucrative contract, and he got awarded damages for that. Obviously it costs less to just embarrass an average joe than if your actions make somebody lose on earning millions.

    2. Re:Justice is blind by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it was some average joe then Gawker wouldn't have made a lot of money in web traffic off of the video. If it was some average joe then no one in their personal circles or employers would know or find out if it was on some web site, because it wasn't plastered all over the national news alerting everyone.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:Justice is blind by bws111 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have it backwards. The problem is NOT that someone with a billion dollars can 'have their eay in the courts', it is that it REQUIRED someone with a billion dollars to get these assholes to respect the rights of others.

  3. Mixed blessing by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Mixed blessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      That's not really concerning at all considering they were definitely guilty and deserved everything they got if not far worse. The real problem is that if Thiel and a rich celebrity like Hulk weren't involved Gawker probably would have gotten away with it.

    2. Re:Mixed blessing by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Why does that matter? I'd say a trial should go on the facts of the case, not facts around the case.

      But then unlike you I don't have a J.D. from DeVry.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Mixed blessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      The jury should decide the case based on the facts presented in court. Who is funding it is not relevant.

    4. Re:Mixed blessing by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see your trenchant analysis has totally ignored the fact that Gawker was very clearly in the wrong the entire time. When presented with an opportunity to repent, they laughed and doubled down on their despicable behavior. It's a good thing that the billionaire came along, otherwise the victim in this case wouldn't have been able to have his day in court. The good guys won, the bad guys lost. That's how it's supposed to happen.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Mixed blessing by steveha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      I would agree with you if I thought that the lawsuit was without merit. Gawker would have been safe from Thiel if they hadn't opened themselves up to a ruinous lawsuit. They horribly invaded Hulk Hogan's privacy to sell ad clicks; there was less than zero journalistic merit in what they did to Hulk Hogan. So I really am not sad that they lost in court, and I don't care who paid the lawyers on Hulk Hogan's side.

      I also think there was less than zero journalistic merit in the way Gawker treated Thiel. So Gawker brought this upon itself two ways: it harassed and bullied Thiel, and then published the Hulk Hogan sex tape.

      The moral of the story is: freedom of the press is not a license to harass and humiliate people.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  4. 1st Amendment? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. I had sympathy for Gawker until the trial details by FireballX301 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:The enemy of my enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't, though. If the case had not been valid, it would not have bankrupted them.

    They also had the option to obey the court's orders, which they elected not to do.

    They have only themselves to blame here. Inasmuch as this is chilling to those who would steal sex tapes and set up a revenge porn site... good riddance. I could justify considering revenge porn obscene, which would strip all first amendment and copyright protections from that specific speech.

  7. The Power of the Wallet by twmcneil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!"
  8. Re:Actually a lot of value was lost by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gawker has made a long business of vile personal attacks. You seem to think that's OK as long as they attack someone you don't like. That's what's destroying America: anything's OK if it hurts the "other side". That sort of thinking leaves only rubble at the end.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.