
Gawker.com to end operations next week after nearly 14 years of operation - jeo1234
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/18/gawkercom-to-end-operations-next-week-after-nearly-14-years-of-operation.html
======
gmarx
The article praises Gawker for often "punching up". For the youngens this
"don't punch down" rule that someone recently invented is a load of hooey.
People who control the mainstream media define up and down and tell you it is
beyond the pale to make fun of any aspect of those defined as down.

Honestly as an older gentleman (hehe) it's shocking how badly we have clamped
down on free speech. When I was young we would wonder how much wilder can the
next generation of kids get? How far will the bounds of free expression be
expanded.

The answer turned out to be "not at all". These things go in cycles and the
current round of private sector driven censorship (yes, please explain to me
how the private sector can't censor) is probably a reaction to the free
wheeling days from the late 1950s to about the late 1980s.

------
minimaxir
Official announcement: [http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-operations-next-
week-178...](http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-operations-next-
week-1785455712) (Gawker.com is a banned domain so a third-party domain is
necessary for submission. Although I guess that doesn't matter anymore).

Note that this does not affect other sites in the Gawker network (Gizmodo,
Jalopnik, etc.)

------
grabcocque
The thing I don't understand is how that jury arrived at its stratospheric
damages figure. Was it designed by the jury to be high enough to put gawker
out of business?

I mean. I have no sympathy for Gawker, and don't think there are any
interesting free speech principles at stake here, I just don't understand it.

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
It's much less surprising when you review the highlight of the testimony:
[https://youtu.be/Ub80kHh5WDI?t=73](https://youtu.be/Ub80kHh5WDI?t=73)

That was said under oath in front of a judge and jury. Makes it rather hard to
take people ranting about "chilling effect on the press" seriously, doesn't
it?

~~~
berberous
Minor nitpick: I think he said that in a deposition, not in front of the judge
and jury, although I think the tape was played in court for them.

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
My mistake; thank you for the correction.

------
jmulvi
Gawker was an entertaining read and loved by many. Doesn't this 10 year long
vendetta against a popular news website make Peter Thiel look like an out-of-
touch evil Bond villain. I'm not saying he is one, but to use a Trumpism, many
people are saying he is.

~~~
kalsk
Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan aren't the only people whose privacy has been
violated by Gawker, they're just the first ones to bite back. Thiel is a hero
in my book.

~~~
e40
I'll agree, but what gives me pause to call him a hero: he supports Trump. So,
like a broken clock being right twice a day, I agree Thiel was right to sue
and shut down Gawker, but I don't hold him in any special esteem.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> I'll agree, but what gives me pause to call him a hero: he supports Trump.

Without commenting on Trump in particular - you do realize that around half
the country support him, right? It's hardly an extreme position.

~~~
evanelias
"Around half the country" is an exaggeration. Even with a two-party system, in
modern history no candidate has achieved the outright support of anything
approaching half of the US population.

Consider that only a portion of the population is eligible and registered to
vote, and even among them voter turnout is relatively low in this country. And
then there's always a segment of undecided voters who just make a choice on
election day, without supporting either candidate prior to that.

In this specific case, add to the math that Trump is doing poorly in recent
polls, and is disliked by an unprecedented percentage of his own party.

Math aside, given the sheer number of disturbing, extreme things Trump has
advocated over the past couple years... if Thiel supports Trump enough to give
an endorsement at the GOP convention, this certainly seems to condone his
behavior, which in my mind is a pretty extreme position.

------
toomuchtodo
Before anyone asks, ArchiveTeam is on this already.

~~~
reustle
Doesn't archive.org already have everything?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Not necessarily.

------
socalnate1
As much as I hate gawker.com, I hate the way they were destroyed even more.

~~~
TillE
By being sued for invading someone's privacy?

I don't like Peter Thiel, but he wasn't the judge or the jury.

~~~
loteck
We can't let distaste for Gawker in particular blind us to the underlying
narrative here. I think Popehat[1] summed up the deeply concerning issues this
Gawker mess has brought to the fore:

 _For most of us the scary part of the story is that our legal system is
generally receptive to people abusing it to suppress speech. Money helps do
that, but it 's not necessary to do it. A hand-to-mouth lunatic with a
dishonest contingency lawyer can ruin you and suppress your speech nearly as
easily as a billionaire. Will you prevail against a malicious and frivolous
defamation suit? Perhaps sooner if you're lucky enough to be in a state with a
good anti-SLAPP statute._

[1] [https://popehat.com/2016/08/18/gawker-money-speech-and-
justi...](https://popehat.com/2016/08/18/gawker-money-speech-and-justice/)

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
Since when is a legitimately selected jury, with no external influences,
finding Gawker guilty "abusive suppression of speech" or "malicious and
frivolous"? Bollea likely would have won the case easily even if he hadn't
received outside funding; the violation was just that egregious.

I have a hard time taking seriously the "underlying narrative" various self-
interested news sources are trying to weave.

~~~
zorpner
Bollea's lawyer (paid for by Thiel, and who should be disbarred for his clear
violation of basic legal ethical standards) made multiple trial decisions that
punished Gawker at Bollea's expense.

Besides, the specific case is a red herring -- Thiel simply got very lucky
that one of the many lawsuits he was secretly funding against Gawker was so
cut-and-dry. Had he not gotten that dropped in his lap, he would have
continued funding other secret nuisance lawsuits until he was able to find
something else with a substantial judgement (and then would have done what he
did in this case -- announce that it was him in order to produce a chilling
effect on other news organizations reporting negatively about his
investments). You can't be simultaneously in favor of the legality of what
Thiel did and against this: [http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-
jones-vander...](http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-
vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit)

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
>that punished Gawker at Bollea's expense

That's for Bollea himself to decide, not us. Frankly, I see no evidence
presented that he had any objection to the choices his attorney made.

> You can't be simultaneously in favor of the legality of what Thiel did and
> against this: [http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-
> vander...](http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-
> vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit)

[edited]

I can and rather easily, at that. Why? Because I can distinguish between cases
that clearly have merit and cases that clearly don't.

This "underlying narrative" people are trying to build, as I said, is just an
outright non-starter.

~~~
zorpner
Thiel's intent was to bankrupt Gawker by secretly funding many cases such as
the Mother Jones example. Again, he got lucky with the Bollea case (not only
in that it was quite egregious, but that it provided an excellent framework to
recruit unwitting members of the public to his defense by exploiting our
cognitive tendency to break conflict into false dichotomies -- being anti-
Gawker doesn't mean I'm pro-Thiel).

Are you in favor of or against someone secretly funding multiple lawsuits in
order to destroy a company producing negative press about their investment
vehicles? That's the question that actually matters.

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
>Are you in favor of or against someone secretly funding multiple lawsuits in
order to destroy a company producing negative press about their investment
vehicles?

Do the lawsuits have merit or not? If they do, the source of funding or
motivation or secrecy is clearly irrelevant.

~~~
zorpner
Is your assertion that lawsuits are decided fairly regardless of the amount of
money each side is able to invest?

 _the source of funding or motivation or secrecy is clearly irrelevant_

You should read about the history of champerty and maintenance in common law.

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
>Is your assertion that lawsuits are decided fairly regardless of the amount
of money each side is able to invest?

Obviously not, or Bollea wouldn't have sought Thiel's funding. Are you sure
you that's the argument you intended to make? :)

>You should read about the history of champerty and maintenance in common law.

As a matter of fact, I have. I'd be very concerned about both champerty and
maintenance ... if I were a wealthy British nobleman living several centuries
ago. Those laws were deemed unnecessary in the modern era and repealed. It's
just plain silly to bring up stale history.

~~~
zorpner
Yes, obviously, since the injection of wealth into a lawsuit produces
unfairness. You're playing dumb, and it just makes you look dumb. Those who
forget the lessons of history, etc...

~~~
jimmydddd
I would think that typically, a corporation has a large financial advantage
over the individual in a potential lawsuit. For example, if they published a
video of mine, I wouldn't even be able to pay enough to hire attorneys to file
a lawsuit. It could be argued that Thiel was just leveling the playing field.

------
fixxer
On the upside, some nice office space in Manhattan coming on the market.

~~~
mixedCase
On the upside, Gakwer.com is shutting down.

------
sctb
Recent discussion about the bankruptcy and sale:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11877814](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11877814)

------
ilostmykeys
Censored?

