
As Gawker learned, media corporations are't above the law - wtbob
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439157/gawker-hulk-hogan-lawsuit-press-isnt-exempt-privacy-laws
======
cagenut
Reminder for the 1000th time: this verdict was the product of venue shopping
until they landed in front of an insane judge and a half dozen floridians.
Earlier courts ruled in Gawkers favor and the eventual appeal will rule in
Gawkers favor. The law is 100% on their side regardless of the frivolity of
the post. It just turns out that given enough time and money you can buy the
justice you want.

~~~
doug1001
thank you.

Looks like 1000 is not enough though. Next 'reminder' maybe place between
<h2></h2>; 'blink' tag might not hurt either.

------
CM30
Just as it should be. In the last few years or so, it seems there's been a
steady push by journalists and media corporations to see how much they can get
away with, ethics or newsworthiness be damned. And in a lot of cases, they got
away with this purely because the people who were affected weren't rich enough
to fight against the company's army of lawyers.

You can see this mindset quite fine in the answer to a question A.J. Daulerio
(Gawker editor) was asked in court:

Interviewer: Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not
be newsworthy?

Daulerio: If they were a child

Interviewer: Under what age?

Daulerio: Four

That's not edited. He actually said that was where Gawker would draw in
regards to what the minimum age for a sex tape featured on their site was. And
that sort of thing is a trend in modern tabloid journalism. The idea that
anything goes, privacy and ethics be damned as long as it gets clicka/the
person affected is someone we don't like. In some cases, even if that means
encouraging violence towards political opponents and riots.

This lawsuit will hopefully teach the media that freedom of the press doesn't
mean 'anything goes, laws be damned'. Maybe it'll also encourage journalists
and editors to think about the consequences of their actions rather than just
how many page views they'll get...

~~~
CarpetBench
I mean, he's clearly joking if you read the transcript. He's an idiot for
having even made that joke, but still.

I think that whole conversation is a perfect example of why you have to be
extremely careful when making tasteless jokes, especially in situations we
typically think of as fairly serious (e.g. court).

The jury probably didn't think highly of Gawker after that exchange, either.

~~~
protomyth
He was under oath. Don't make jokes while under oath is a pretty good guide to
life.

~~~
CarpetBench
Yeah, I agree. He was being an idiot.

I was just trying to point out that he didn't actually support sex tapes for 5
year olds.

He's a dumbass for trying to make a joke under oath, but not a dumbass who
would post a 5 year-old's celebrity sex tape.

~~~
protomyth
I quite agree he isn't that big of a dumbass to post and underage sex tape,
but he really needed to accord himself better in that setting under those
circumstances.

Plus, its an important lesson for people. When dealing with a situation where
your words will be interpreted by people you don't know with harsh penalties
for lying or just sounding disreputable, you need to be precise and respectful
with your words.

~~~
CarpetBench
Absolutely. Agreed.

------
chasing
Even if you believe that Gawker was guilty of something in posting the Hogan
sex tapes, I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can view the
annihilation of the company as justice.

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.

~~~
lmkg
Gawker is not being destroyed because they broke the law. Many companies,
including media companies, do that on the regular. Gawker is being destroyed
because a billionaire didn't like them, and decided to devote enough time &
money to destroy them.

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.

~~~
andylei
actually, it seems like gawker is being destroyed because it made powerful
enemies AND broke the law.

------
manishsharan
As Torontonian, I want to thank Gawker for breaking the story "Rob Ford
smoking crack" story.

~~~
icantdrive55
As a regular dude who was thinking way too much about a former college
girlfriend. I want to thank Gawker for showing me a picture of her in Cabo
with at least 30 dudes.

I don't want to get into a debate. She was just a product of life/business
circumstances? I just remember a girl who who suddenly got depressed when
other pretty girls were around, at work, or wherever. She was on a company
vacation, but seeing her with so many seemingly desperate dudes, jerked me
back into realty pretty quick. I never wanted a Amish girlfriend, but I didn't
want a canieving, opportunist then, nor now. And yes--I guess it's a bit
sexist? I had to include that last sentence. Why--just because.

She was a statistics/accounting major in college. She was always gauging her
odds for seemingly everything. When I heard she got tired of San Francisco,
and still wasen't married, I just had a hunch she would go to a place that she
thought would up her her social desirability. I figured she thought Silicon
Valley would be the place--a lot of ambitious white guys.

That's where she ended up. It was probally business related move, but I was so
glad I saw her in that publication years ago. I believe it was called The
Valley Wag in the day. It saved a lot of speculation, or what's the phrase--
maybe regret over what could have been?

------
vkou
They aren't... But it also showed that it takes being a billionaire to enforce
the law.

------
spriggan3
Rightfully so. Gawker was one the most obnoxious "news organisation" out
there. But what is more shocking to me is how other news org are still
defending Gawker, under the excuse of "free speech". I mean, one would think
that the last thing all these prominent orgs would want is to be associated
with Gawker in anyway, but no, they actually defended that rag and its owners.

~~~
protomyth
I would imagine they are a bit worried because they have been pretty immune
from lawsuits because of cost and court ruling protecting newspapers from even
spreading false statements. When people who can crush others with just words
on a page lose their immunity, they get very, very nervous of all the stuff
they have written in haste over the years.

------
thegayngler
There is going to be 40 others that pop up in its place and you can bet that
they'll be more prepared to withstand justice shopping efforts.

~~~
spriggan3
> There is going to be 40 others that pop up in its place and you can bet that
> they'll be more prepared to withstand justice shopping efforts.

What does that mean "justice shopping" ? are you implying that Hulk Hogan
lawsuit was frivolous or he somehow bought judges with Thiel's money ? can you
be more specific ?

~~~
thegayngler
First off Hulk Hogan was washed up before this incident. 100million+ dollars
was way over the top. Secondly, Hulk Hogan didn't lose any money from it.
Where is the damage other than it gave him publicity.

People have had medical procedures go wrong and been unlawfully murdered by
law enforcement and gotten far and away less money.

The reason I use the term justice shopping is because Peter Theil had been
unsuccessful at attempts to get back a Gawker for outing him in previous law
suits. TBQH he's a hypocrite on the issue of gay rights.

Peter should stop making his sexuality everyone else's problem. So what
someone said you were gay and you are gay. Big f-n deal. I'm gay myself.

Hulk Hogan made a movie and is mad it got released. If you don't want your
movie released, you don't make it in the first place. He is a celebrity and
knows the risks. This isn't some non-public figure.

I don't like the implications here that if the media reports on something you
don't like, jamming up the court system with law suit after law suit is a
viable option.

------
ChrisNorstrom
Anyone want to join me in pooling in some money to web scrape Gawker.com along
with the comments for future archiving? Once it's gone it's gone. (and no
Archive.org doesn't grab everything, especially if it's hiding behind "click
to load more" links)

I'm thinking of doing the same with all of NPR's comments before they get
deleted on Aug 23.

~~~
oldmanjay
I'll be frank, I would rather give you money to just let it die. Gawker isn't
what the world needs.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
Gawker is evil and that's why it needs to be preserved as a valuable lesson in
propaganda for future generations. So one day when kids ask "show me an
example of far left liberal extremist propaganda" you can show them the Gawker
Archives.

~~~
oldmanjay
We have many extant examples of shitty gossip sites. the politics of said
sites aren't really important in any way I can imagine. Beyond that, gawker
isn't even far left. It's just populist. We have many extant examples of
shitty populist sites as well.

