
Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction - apsec112
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gawker-declaring-bankruptcy-will-be-put-up-for-auction-1465578030
======
grellas
A few thoughts:

1\. The pressure point here was a court ruling declining to stay enforcement
of the $140M judgment pending appeal. This left Gawker having to post a $50M
bond in order to avoid enforcement proceedings by which its assets could have
been seized and its business literally dismantled. Gawker may or may not
ultimately prove to have a successful basis upon which to get this judgment
reversed but, without a stay of enforcement, it had no way of staying alive
until it could have the matter decided by the appellate courts. No stay, no
hope.

2\. The bankruptcy filing, then, forces Gawker to give up its business but
gives a vehicle by which the parties in interest behind the company can get
$100+M by which to continue the fight through appeal in hopes of getting the
judgment reversed and presumably leaving them with some significant value to
salvage from what is now a desperate situation.

3\. Concerning the social policy question here, it has repeatedly been framed
as whether it is proper for a super-wealthy individual to fund another party's
litigation to get payback or for some other suspect reason and what
implications this has on the news media. This is a proper question but it is
framed too narrowly. The broader question is whether the law should permit
_any_ third-party funding of litigation where the funder has otherwise has no
connection with the merits of the dispute. Historically, the answer to that
question was an emphatic _no_. Indeed, that sort of activity was defined as a
crime - specifically, the crime of "maintenance." The statutes defining this
crime originated in England and dated back the 1200's and so could truly be
called ancient of origin. Basically, the idea back then was that feudal lords
should not be permitted to use their wealth to interfere with legal process
and thereby to potentially corrupt. By the 1700's, William Blackstone summed
up the nature of the offense (as part of his famous work summing up all of the
English common law) by defining maintenance as "officious intermeddling in a
suit that no way belongs to one" and called it an "offense against public
justice, as it keeps alive strife and contention and perverts the remedial
process of the law into an engine of oppression." In contrast to this long-
established hostility toward the interfering use of wealth to influence the
judicial process, modern attitudes (dating back at least 50 years) came to see
more litigation as being good for society as it could be used as a tool to
help correct inequities in society - hence the litigation explosion. Owing to
this changed attitude, many erstwhile barriers to open-ended litigation came
tumbling down and along with them came the near-universal repeal of the crime
of maintenance (and the related offenses of "champerty" and "barratry"). With
this repeal, it became open season for any wealthy person wanting to fund
anybody else's litigation for whatever purpose suited him. If people have a
problem with that, that is the issue that should be addressed and not a narrow
issue involving added protections for the press only. Litigation abuse is
litigation abuse; if it is bad for the press, it is bad as well for other
victims in society.

4\. To illustrate how this sort of intermeddling tainted the processes in this
case: lawyers routinely will add claims that will bring in insurance defense
coverage to ensure that they can collect on any judgment but here the lawyers
were directed to _exclude_ a claim that would have allowed Gawker to bring in
its insurer to cover costs of defense and potentially any judgment; parties
also routinely will make serious efforts to settle any high-stakes litigation
at various critical points but here it was all scorched-earth all the way to
the bitter end with no prospect of the parties achieving a reasonable
settlement along the way.

I don't think too many people will shed a tear over the demise of Gawker but
the public policy issue here is an important one. Can the modern mindset - so
enamored with the supposed benefits of expanding redress through litigation -
ever go back to reinstating laws forbidding "maintenance"? I doubt it. But
perhaps the time is right for a debate and reconsideration. I think we are
otherwise left a little unsettled over what the promiscuous scattering of
third-party money throughout the courts might do. Whatever it is, it likely is
not good.

~~~
jacquesm
(3) is proof positive the absence or presence of funds has too much influence
on the outcome of court cases. If all that stands between a judgment one way
or the other is a pile of cash then effectively there is no such thing as
justice and this means that more often than not the party with the smallest
bank account will lose.

I'm fine with the concept of 'maintenance' but at the same time I feel that
there is such a basic unfairness in the various implementations of our systems
of justice that some re-balancing is often the only way in which one of the
parties stands a chance of winning or losing the case _on its merits_.

Especially when the other party is a corporation or the government I have no
bad feelings about helping to fund the lawsuit (especially a defense).

~~~
SilasX
Exactly -- the problem is that our civil litigation's "truth-finding
procedure" is so vulnerable to financial influence. Asking how to "keep people
from spending money on lawyers" is the wrong approach; the system's process
needs to be robust against such asymmetric investment. [1]

People forget that proper civil litigation is a _public good_ (in the economic
sense). Ensuring that (civil) wrongdoers pay for their actions benefits
everyone by making it less likely they will be a victim of such acts, and more
likely that transgressors will offer a quick settlement rather than using the
courts in the first place.

[1] While it's impossible to truly shield off such influence, we can at least
go for some standard like, "it should take an exponential investment to
produce a linear impact on the award".

~~~
ryanlol
>the problem is that our civil litigation's "truth-finding procedure" is so
vulnerable to financial influence

Do you have any scientific research backing this? Or just anecdotal evidence?

~~~
EdHominem
Asking for scientific evidence that the sun will come up is almost like
trolling.

In an adversarial system your chances depend on the amount of valid legal
process-effort you exert. If you acknowledge that this effort is correlated
with financing, even a little, then you admit there _is_ a vulnerability.

A more reasonable question would be if they have a reason to assume that the
variable has an oversized impact on the process.

~~~
ryanlol
>In an adversarial system your chances depend on the amount of valid legal
process-effort you exert. If you acknowledge that this effort is correlated
with financing, even a little, then you admit there is a vulnerability.

This is a fair point, but the existence of such a vulnerability is
unquestionable. However, SilasX seemed to be implying that this is a
significant vulnerability, which is a claim that certainly deserves some
evidence to back it up.

>A more reasonable question would be if they have a reason to assume that the
variable has an oversized impact on the process.

That's exactly what I was asking about, SilasX specifically said "so
vulnerable" as opposed to just "vulnerable". That seems to imply such an
oversized impact.

------
whack
Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an
entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading
disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could
have better helped inform the public.

The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a
billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such
recourse should be made available to every common man, regardless of wealth.

But still, progress is only ever made, one step at a time. Good riddance to
Gawker.

~~~
smt88
> _Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy_

One man's libel/slander is another man's investigate journalism ("muckraking"
in the US). In this particular case, Gawker wasn't guilty of either libel or
slander because they didn't publish anything about Hogan that was false.

> _it shouldn 't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against
> slanderous publishers_

It's actually much _harder_ to win a libel/slander suit as a public figure.
See: [http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/libel-
defamation](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/libel-defamation)

~~~
taejo
Your comment exposed me to the big gap between the meanings of muckraker in US
and UK English:

1\. (US) One who investigates and exposes issues of corruption that often
violate widely held values; e.g. one who exposes political corruption or the
poor conditions in prisons.

2\. (Britain) A sensationalist, scandal-mongering journalist, one who is not
driven by any social principles.

~~~
hoorayimhelping
I'm American and I've only heard a muckraker described as number 2.

~~~
smt88
ProPublica, one of my favorite investigative news sources, describes some of
their articles as "muckreads". They use the word proudly, with the implication
that they've gone to lengths that the general public would/could not to find
out important information.

As someone said, it was a pejorative term that was reclaimed, and that makes a
lot of sense to me now.

~~~
johnpowell
Talking Points Memo does the same.

[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker)

------
nostromo
Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the
precedent this sets.

It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK.
We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK.

I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me
very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and
close down unfavorable media outlets. I believe this will have a chilling
effect on the media in the US.

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people
in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a
rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on
media we should all be applauding.

Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot
of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what
the hand-wringing about is about.

~~~
olliej
It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan
is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not
cheating, loose morals of young people).

So... Reporting on that seems like actual information that should be public?
Compare to the pamela anderson tape, which was with her husband, was literally
/stolen from their home/, and was sold for profit. Judge ruled that there
wasnt anythig they could do.

Meanwhile, Thiel who was using hogan as a proxy has literally just
demonstrated that you cant afford to post opinion pieces about tech
billionaires and their occassionally delusional comments about how people
should behave.

~~~
throw10010110
I'm posting this on a throwaway account for obvious reasons, so this comment
is showing up as dead. Would someone mind vouching it? Thanks!

 _It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest
(hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being
faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people)._

This fetish is called wifesharing. It's not cheating, and it's not immoral.
You may not personally like the idea, but calling someone's fetish immoral
when all parties consent to the act is strange. Saying that it's in the public
interest to know is offensive.

There are many sources that say this was a consensual act. I won't post these
sordid articles here, but they are very easy to find.

This is equivalent to someone being gay, and someone else saying that it's in
the public interest for their immoral acts to be made public.

~~~
dang
I've unkilled your comment and marked the account legit, but please don't ask
for people to vouch for a dead comment. That's no better than asking for
votes, which isn't allowed. Also, please don't post the same comment twice.

------
josh_carterPDX
Gawker didn't fail because of anything other than a complete lack of
integrity. They were aggressive, manipulative, and unethical. I remember we
had a co-working space where Gawker had some people. We couldn't say shit out
loud and had to make sure our screens could not be seen by anyone else in the
building. There's nothing more unnerving than actually feeling as though
someone was watching/stalking you. This company and the people they employed
were vultures. To call this thing a publication is an insult to people who are
actually digging up stories that have an impact to society. This was worse
than the National Enquirer and the world is a better place without them part
of it. Good riddance.

------
baldfat
Messed up lawsuit and I actually don't know what to think.

1) Gawker was garbage dwelling story makers. I am glad they aren't going to do
stories anymore.

2) Who will it be the next time something happens like this will it be a
actual journalist and good content producer that gets sued to death? Scared
for journalist????

Also would be nice to see LifeHacker survive this.

~~~
fullshark
Well the hope is that the courts wouldn't rule against an actual journalist
for doing his/her job in a lawsuit. I get the "slippery slope" argument but
posting a video of Hulk Hogan having sex (taken and posted without his
consent) doesn't really qualify as journalism in any way and they really
deserved to lose.

~~~
untog
The court doesn't even have to rule against the journalist for the legal costs
to destroy a media organisation. By example, this exact thing happened to
Mother Jones:

[http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-
sued...](http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-sued-us-we-
won-we-still-have-big-legal-bills-pay)

~~~
tomp
That's fucked up. But it's the same problem _everywhere_ in the US - not just
media. Looks like the whole system need an overhaul.

~~~
webXL
Or just implement Loser Pays.

~~~
untog
Still wouldn't work. The loser wouldn't pay until the case is closed, and the
company could go bankrupt in the meantime. Case in point, Gawker is widely
expected to have their damages reduced on appeal, but it's already too late.

~~~
webXL
Legal fees are incredibly high right now partly because of frivolous lawsuits.
Loser pays would drive down costs making bankruptcy a lot less likely.
Besides, if this had been a pure 1st Amendment case, deep pockets like the
ACLU could act like an insurance policy and pick up some of the day-to-day
expenses, but the savings from _not_ continuously defending yourself against
frivolous lawsuits and getting reimbursed when you win would reduce the need
for outside assistance.

------
rm_-rf_slash
Gossip rags come and go. As long as there are celebrities there will be
celebrity tabloids.

Privately funding a lawsuit for someone else so you can settle a grudge is
ethically dubious, at best.

The American system of allowing juries instead of judges to set reward amounts
only ultimately benefits overpaid lawyers, and society as a whole is worse off
from the damages of frivolous lawsuits.

That's all I think there really is to say about that...

~~~
ryanlol
>Privately funding a lawsuit for someone else so you can settle a grudge is
ethically dubious, at best.

Do you feel that revenge in general is ethically dubious or just the lawsuit
part?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
The justice system in any democracy should be a level playing field in the
eyes of the law, not a pay-to-play free for all.

~~~
dragontamer
The jury is the closest thing to a direct democracy America has.

Judges can be corrupted. The jury is basically a direct poll of 12 average
Americans. Its known that the court system is imperfect, but juries serve as a
restraint on otherwise powerful judges.

~~~
etimberg
> The jury is basically a direct poll of 12 average Americans

Well, except for the part where the lawyers get to remove the people they
don't want. It's not really random at that point.

~~~
dragontamer
I meant that the Americans were Average Joes. Not that the jury selection
process was representative of America.

------
julian88888888
here's a summary:

Gawker Media filed for bankruptcy Friday and the company will be put up for
auction after a judge ruled that a $140 million jury judgment against it in a
costly legal battle with former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan would stand.

The sale auction will begin with an opening bid of $100 million from the
digital media company and publisher Ziff Davis LLC, according to a person
familiar with the matter.

The sale was triggered after the judge overseeing the invasion-of-privacy case
brought by Hulk Hogan—whose real name is Terry Bollea—declined to issue a stay
pending Gawker’s appeal.

Proceeds from a sale will go into a fund to finance further litigation costs
and cover whatever damages may ultimately be leveled following the appeals
process, which could take years to resolve.

Two weeks ago, it emerged that Silicon Valley billionaire and investor Peter
Thiel has been financing Mr. Bollea’s legal fight and other such battles
involving people who Mr. Thiel feels have been targeted unfairly by the media
company.

------
adamnemecek
And nothing of value was lost.

~~~
Negative1
A billionaire used his money and influence to destroy an organization because
he doesn't agree with what they say. I can think of at least one thing of
value that was lost.

~~~
lmm
Money and influence would have got him nowhere if Gawker had stayed within the
law and/or common decency.

~~~
dragonwriter
Law suits occasionally come to incorrect results (the appellate process exists
to mitigate this risk, and the higher burden of proof in certain cases,
notably criminal cases, exists to direct which side those errors tend to fall
on), punishing people who are within the bounds of law and common decency.

Therefore, a deep pockets agent funding every potential lawsuit from other
parties they can find (or stimulate), increasing the number of such suits and
the likelihood that they will go to trial, can, simply by taking enough
swings, eventually impose a combination of legal costs and judgements that
will financially destroy the target; actual unlawful behavior may reduce the
time it takes for this strategy to succeed, but isn't necessary for it to
work.

So, given Theil's demonstrated proclivities in the multiple lawsuits he was
funding against Gawker, I don't think the statement that Gawker would have
been okay if they had stayed within the law is warranted.

------
mevile
I don't like Gawker, but I like the idea of a billionaire being able to
bankrupt news sites that he doesn't like even less.

~~~
lujim
Well Gawker isn't exactly the Wall Street Journal and they didn't get the
bankruptcy treatment for having a differing political opinion or some
different viewpoint. They were bullying people and now they are getting
bullied.

~~~
BryantD
False equivalency. They bullied Thiel, and made him unhappy. I don't see any
evidence that his ability to do business has been affected.

Thiel has now made it impossible for Gawker to continue as a company.

The effect of the bullying is vastly different.

~~~
lujim
Who said it has anything to due with equivalency? Go try to bully your boss,
or a cop, or a 6'9" meat head. You're free to try, but you might not like the
result. Part of life if using your brain to determine what you are free to do
vs what makes sense to do.

~~~
BryantD
"don't do things that people who are more powerful than you will dislike."

~~~
lujim
"when unethical, unnecessary, and/or pointless to do so, and may result in you
taking a literal or figurative beating". ie "common sense" meets "pick your
battles"

~~~
mevile
So you're totally OK with the chilling effect impact of wealth and political
power on journalism. Got it.

~~~
lujim
While I do appreciate Gawker telling me about PT's sexual orientation and
showing me the hulksters junk, I will reserve journalistic martyrdom status
for Assange and Snowden. That's the ethical, necessary,pick your battles part
of my previous post.

------
danso
Sad in a way. AFAIK, Gawker is not only one of the few independent online
media companies (VICE/Vox/BuzzFeed/BusinessInsider are heavily funded/owned by
massive media conglomerates), it was one of the few media companies period
making a healthy profit:

[http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/gawkers-pre-
hoga...](http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/gawkers-pre-hogan-plan-
to-become-an-800-million-tech-company-004576)

> _The company’s revenue had grown from about $5.3 million in 2006 to $43.8
> million in 2014. It was consistently profitable, with a 2014 operating
> income of $6.7 million. Most importantly, it had an ambitious plan to create
> a lucrative new revenue stream by monetizing third-party content on its
> proprietary online publishing platform, Kinja, that promised to deliver the
> site from many of the increasing pressures facing ad-supported digital
> publishing._

I wouldn't be surprised if Gawker were the only online-only media company that
was making profits in the range of millions. That Hogan video, which couldn't
have brought in more than a good week's worth of traffic, was a fucking dumb
way to flush a nearly billion dollar company down the toilet. For legal
reasons, Gawker has publicly stood by the former editor who published the post
(and then who went on to create another Gawker-like site [1], that immediately
folded because of non-traffic), but I wonder if Gawker employees are privately
treating him like a pariah.

[1] [http://ratter.com/](http://ratter.com/)

~~~
cloakandswagger
I find it kind of perverse to champion a company based solely on their
profitability. Gawker was a profitable media company because they were one of
the the only ones debased enough to resort to muckraking for their tasteless,
voyeuristic audiences.

Good riddance, I say.

~~~
matthewowen
Why are you using "muckraking" as a negative term?

~~~
calbear81
Lots of people here get riled up because Gawker wasn't drinking the kool-aid.
I personally like having a muckraker who keeps everyone's egos in check.

------
soneca
IMO, Thiel did not bought the justice, it only worked out fine for him because
a just judge ruled that Gawker was wrong according to the law.

And those who think he _de facto_ bought the law; they should fight for the
justice system itself to be reformed, not shaming or trying to regulate who
pays the lawyers bill (although I think it could be a public information).

------
markplindsay
That's what happens when you're a news organization critical of Silicon
Valley, and a tech billionaire doesn't like it. Which media outlet is next on
Thiel's hit list?

------
soheil
It's worthwhile to remember free speech is not absolute. There are several
cases where it's not considered free speech, here are some examples:
Obscenity, Fighting words, Defamation (includes libel, slander) Child
pornography, Perjury, Blackmail, Incitement to imminent lawless action, True
threats, Solicitations to commit crimes.

I know people love to protect freedom of speech and I'm on that bandwagon, but
please let's remember just because it appears freedom of speech is being
violated doesn't mean it is (e.g. in cases were most people don't support
something and it appears the mob rule is triumph, it should indeed be sign
that something may be wrong but let's not use that sign as enough evidence
that free speech is violated.) Sometimes it's not the freedom of speech that
is being violated, but some person's rights.

------
jshevek
As a fan of privacy rights, this pleases me.

Also, sites like Gawker benefit from encouraging the most base aspects of our
culture. Seeing one head of the hydra getting chopped off isn't really
progress, but it is satisfying.

------
univalent
The size of the award is insane. Wrongful death suits are awarded far lower
amounts.

~~~
jkern
Honestly that's the part of this story that stands out to me. Clearly Gawker
was in the wrong for posting the sex tape, but the size of the punishment
seems massively disproportionate.

~~~
slavik81
It seems fairly common for judges to end up having to reduce the amount that
juries award. If you look at responses to news articles about fines against
companies, many people immediately compare them against the company's revenues
or net worth as a measure of how fair the amounts were. I presume that's how
juries see these things as well.

------
olliej
Its amazing how many people are coming to claim this is "100% awesome", but in
another thread will say that reddit closing threads that share stolen nudes or
preteen porn is censorship that should be illegal and is demonstrating the
power of SJWs.

~~~
cjahsh
There's not a lot of evidence that these are the same people.

You know not everyone on the internet is the same??

~~~
makomk
On the other hand, I seem to recall there being no shortage of people who
attacked Reddit over people posting revenge porn but sided with Gawker on
this. Especially in the media. (Not just talking Gawker employees either,
though there were plenty of those from all it's sub-publications.)

------
Fej
Nothing of value was lost. Good riddance.

Of course, they may very well just end up under a new owner, which might
change things... a little... hopefully.

------
pmarreck
I'm torn between everyone having their privacy and ripping the band-aid off by
exposing everyone's private life at once so we see how things really are
instead of how we think them to be

For instance, I'd bet that many marriages are largely keeping up appearances
while hiding some big secrets which would put the whole concept of "Western
marriage" at risk (perhaps justifiably)

~~~
FilterSweep
Hmmm....

Do you _need_ to see how everyone's private life is, or is this just
curiosity?

Sure, if you can live with the unnecessary consequences of how some people
might react when their private lives are exposed - Ashley Madison Hack[0]
provides a salient recent example [1].

Furthermore, it is obvious to many that some marriages are all for
appearances. But they are also for children. They're also to appease nuclear
and extended family. I don't understand the line of thinking where you could
justify _needing_ to know which other families are staying together "for the
children" or "to keep their parents happy."

Is it any of your business?

Humans have kept their thoughts to themselves throughout their entire history
(citation needed). Because the data collection practices of the Internet
_deceive_ the average person into giving their private thoughts to a SERP or
telemetry-ridden OS, that gives you the right to "rip the bandaid" off
everyone?

[0]: [http://fusion.net/story/195787/whats-going-on-with-ashley-
ma...](http://fusion.net/story/195787/whats-going-on-with-ashley-madison/)
[1]: [http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-ashely-
madison...](http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-ashely-madison-leak-
puts-thousands-women-lgbt-lives-risk)

~~~
pmarreck
Regarding the links... Perhaps, if those intolerant countries realized the
TOTAL truth, they might accept it and move on instead of killing people? (note
that American intolerance for infidelity is the same as Saudi Arabia and
faaaar lower than France.)

There are of course things I freely elect to not know. Simple example, the
sexual details of all the exes of my current girlfriend. I could ask her and
she'd tell me, but I won't. Call it insecurity...

------
leothekim
The thing I have trouble reconciling is that the merits of the case were
judged in a court of law and found in favor for Hogan and against Gawker.
AFAICT, the fact that Thiel was funding Hogan's case only became widely known
after the judgment. Honest question - would there have been the same judgment
against Gawker if Thiel didn't fund the case?

I also have trouble understanding how what Gawker did as ethical journalism,
relativistically speaking or otherwise. It's hard to compare a sex tape of a
former wrestler to uncovering scandals in a major institution, like the
Washington Post did for Watergate, the NY Times did with the Pentagon Papers,
the Boston Globe with the sexual predation in the Catholic church, or even
what every major media outlet published with the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Publishing this sex tape was for clickbait, which is purely about metrics and
much less about holding our institutions and public figures accountable for
unethical or illegal activity.

------
corin_
_' The media company [...] had assets of $50 to $100 million and liabilities
of $100 million to $500 million, filings showed.'_

[http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/10/gawker-media-files-for-
ch-11-...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/10/gawker-media-files-for-
ch-11-bankruptcy-protection.html)

~~~
mmastrac
Does this mean the only sensible bid is between $0 to -$450M?

~~~
ThrustVectoring
No, because the liabilities are getting discharged with the results of the
sale. Essentially, Gawker isn't selling itself. Gawker is essentially
exchanging itself for the liabilities to their creditors, and the creditors
are then selling it in lieu of Gawker paying their debts.

Really simplified example: suppose you're 12, you own a lemonade stand, and
you owe your dad $200 (secured against the lemonade stand). It's not going
well, so you go through bankruptcy - dad now owns the lemonade stand, you no
longer owe dad any money, and he goes and sells it for whatever he can get
(say, $100). $100 is a sensible bid for the stand because the debt to the
kid's dad has already been discharged.

------
intrasight
Good riddance. They took a gamble and lost. That's business. That's life.

~~~
sheepleherd
they took a gamble and lost, that's business != good riddance

------
ryanlol
Looks like Thiel going public crushed any hopes Gawker may have had of being
able to acquire funding to fight the lawsuits.

Very well played by Thiel, whether or not you agree with what he did.

------
hoodoof
Will Darth Thiel now give Hulk Hogan the money he won't get from the court
outcome?

Or is Hulk Hogan left as just a pawn in the game, with the court victory but
no payout?

------
badloginagain
Cant read because of paywall, but I have been following along with this
"dramady." I wonder what form of invasive media will fill the void in Gawkers
wake. If anyone thinks this is the end of Gawkers distasteful form of
journalism they are very wrong.

Gawker worked. It was nasty, but it worked. Companies will form and fill the
gap; but they'll be more resilient because they'll remember how Gawker fell.

~~~
draker
Search the title, click the result. If the referer is a search engine it won't
paywall you.

~~~
hasenj
In chrome, just put a question mark before the url, it will take you to google
with the url as the first result.

------
elcapitan
I wonder what kind of horrible stuff they'll put up for sale that they
probably didn't dare to publish themselves.

------
danvoell
Does the auction include debt obligations?

~~~
smt88
Gawker's debt will be reduced by declaring bankruptcy. It'll take time to find
out by how much it will be reduced.

------
incompletewoot
I wonder if Thiel will follow the management around waiting to pounce on them
doing something else, just to solidify his brand. Kinda like the IRS loves
seeing reporting of people suffering from IRS & tax problems as an
advertisement to not mess with the IRS.

------
alistproducer2
Any lawyer here care ti tell why the following would not work?

1\. Start new corporation 2\. Buy new set of domain name with said corporation
3\. Redirect Gawker (and other gawker sites) to new domains until they sell
the carcass of the now-defunct Gawker.

------
willvarfar
I just don't get why Gawker was an American company. If you want to do
something sue-worthy, just base your legal self in some uncooperative country
e.g. Russia?

------
jonah
I hope Jalopnik survives largely intact. It's one of the better/more
entertaining general car sites put there.

------
BFatts
YAY! Score 1 for decency in the media!

------
jagger27
Whatever the outcome, I hope Jalopnik sticks around.

------
sunstone
Gawking at Gawker circling the sewer drain.

------
geerlingguy
Some context, for those who haven't been following:

    
    
      - Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker[1]
      - Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes[2]
      - $115M verdict in Hulk Hogan sex-tape lawsuit could wipe out Gawker[3]
    

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11774588](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11774588)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315985](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315985)

[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11318100](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11318100)

~~~
cm2187
In your context, you forgot the step before those:

\- Gawker outs Pether Thiel

~~~
nailer
Also missing from the timeline:

\- Gawker publishes a person's sex tape without their consent.

~~~
fullshark
The tape was created without his consent also for the purpose of blackmail.

------
cloudjacker
Anybody want to set up a group buy for Jezebel? I want to shape what women
think about to be more in line with my image of reality.

partially kidding

------
igorgue
Thin skinned billionaires...

~~~
nailer
You wouldn't say that if some private aspect of your own life was revealed to
the public without your consent.

~~~
igorgue
You are the kind of person who likes the first amendment only for compliments,
it supposed to be for these kind of stuff, the ugly shit.

Again, he's a public figure.

~~~
nailer
Not American, but the Hogan story wasn't under trial. The sex tape was. The
jury made the right choice.

~~~
igorgue
The only reason the trial exists is not because of the tape, is because of
Thiel's thin skin, cause he didn't have any grounds on his.

I don't think you understand how this is an abuse of money on the juritary
system.

~~~
nailer
What? Without the tape there wouldn't have been a trial.

I think you've bought into a narrative created by fearful journalists.

~~~
igorgue
Without Thiel's money there wouldn't be a trial.

Trust me, Hulk Hogan and Thiel aren't friends, he just has a personal vendeta
with it.

And I think you bought into a narrative of Silicon Valley cocksuckers ;-)

------
meira
Liberals cheers for this, and get angry when Brazil blocks Whatsapp or
Facebook. Logic. None.

------
beatpanda
Lovely to see Hacker News praising the wisdom of the billionaire who just
managed to shut down a press outlet he didn't like. This new era of feudalism
is off to a great start.

~~~
benten10
I'd love to see someone suggesting suing Breitbart/Fox out of existence. I
mean... they're just as 'newsful' as gawker was...

~~~
dingo_bat
But have Fox and Breitbart broken the law and defied a court order?

------
nekosune
Oh dear

------
benten10
Don't anger the Billionaire. He can fund the Lawsuits longer than you can stay
solvent.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
Except that's not what happened here.

------
synaesthesisx
Ah, schadenfreude at its finest!

------
mc32
Purveyors of news take note. Provide news. Don't engage in useless insight
into peoples' personal peccadilloes which have little if any bearing on people
at large. Don't be lured by the clickbait revenue model or trade in
inconsequential lurid tales and try to pedal it as hard news.

