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.

10 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: 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.

    2. 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?
  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 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. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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!"
  6. 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!
  7. 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