7 ms·

It never ceases to amaze me how many "journalists" still deride the Gawker lawsuit. Are they offended that they cannot publish anyone's personal sex tape withou

It never ceases to amaze me how many "journalists" still deride the Gawker lawsuit. Are they offended that they cannot publish anyone's personal sex tape without permission? Keep in mind, a celebrity did not have enough money to take on a shittly little website in a lawsuit, so even he had to find another backer. Imagine if Gawker decided to publish your private info. Would you have enough money to defend your privacy?

matt4077 9y ago
It never ceases to amaze me how "reading comprehension" has declined. The article doesn't make a value judgement about the Gawker lawsuit, and nobody is "offended". It only contains a statement of fact: "some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit". Now I don't know if that statement is accurate, but I see no reason to doubt it. It's also noteworthy that (as far as I remember) nobody came to Gawker's defence, precisely because it was generally accepted that publishing the tape was wrong. However, the chilling effect isn't necessarily about journalists' fear of no longer being able to publish sex tapes. They are concerned because Gawker ultimately went down not for the indefensible sex tape, but for its treatment of Peter Thiel. This case, if lost, would open pandora's box: You can write an article that is completely accurate, relevant, legal, and important to publish. But if it crosses the wrong billionaire, they can go through all of your archive, pick whatever I-invented-email-nutjob they believe has the best chances with a jury (or ten of them), and bankrupt you.
- FloayYerBoat 9y ago
  I think my reading comprehension is fine. "...writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit — which some have called the Gawker Effect." "This sends a message that there are wealthy Americans or their proxies willing to push back on a trend toward litigation over negative news stories driven by some of their peers. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, for example, funded the lawsuit against Gawker;" This article is clearly hinting that the Gawker lawsuit had a poor outcome, and fails to mention Gawker's actual liability in the case and why they lost a trial. They also mention that Gawker was just writing "news stories" twice and that is why they were sued. I stand by my original comment.
- gozur88 9y ago
  >It only contains a statement of fact: "some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit". Is that really a statement of fact, or is what they're shying away from is repeating rumors about and/or invading the privacy of powerful and well-resourced people? I know journalists love to trot out the "chilling effect" canard, but I don't see it much in action for legitimate stories.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    They link this article, which says that it almost happened to the R. Kelly "cult" story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-r-kelly-cult-story-almost-never-ran-thank-hulk-hogan-for-that/2017/07/30/19e1f8ea-72c5-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-r-kelly-...
chipotle_coyote 9y ago
Keep in mind, a celebrity did not have enough money to take on a shittly little website in a lawsuit, so even he had to find another backer. That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the backer in question didn't give a shit about Hulk Hogan and his sex tape, beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that he already wanted to take out. (If this was just up to Hogan, he'd likely have taken one of the settlements offered, and almost certainly wouldn't have dropped the claim of "negligent infliction of emotional distress," a move whose only point was to prevent Gawker's insurance company from being able to cover any part of the damages.) In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that Thiel backed several lawsuits against Gawker, including one from the same yoyo who claims to have invented email that's suing Techdirt now. And Thiel won't say if he's bankrolling Ayyuadurai's lawsuit against Techdirt, which is being brought by the same attorney Thiel hired for Hogan. What a strange coincidence! Celebrity rags being sued isn't a precedent; having a billionaire fund other people's lawsuits until he finds one that sticks is. And there's a small but non-zero chance that the lawsuit we're talking about right now is one of those lawsuits, and unlike the Hogan case, the plaintiff is clearly in the wrong. Journalists, and I won't put the snide air quotes around the word, aren't that worried about the "if you publish somebody's leaked sex tape you can get sued for it" part of this matter. They're worried about the other part.
- msla 9y ago
  > beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that he already wanted to take out. OK, so why did he have it in for Gawker? They outed him as gay against his will while he was in Saudi Arabia. (Edited To Add: I can't find any good cites saying he was in Saudi Arabia at the time, so I don't know one way or the other right now. Regardless, the outing itself was morally wrong, so my argument doesn't change.) That's behavior which should be punished, morally, even if it isn't illegal. It's certainly behavior which anyone with a brain can realize would lead to making the person you outed an enemy. It seems Gawker's main sin was making an enemy of someone who could hurt them, and the injustice here is that most assholes don't have such enemies.
  - aetherson 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

It never ceases to amaze me how "reading comprehension" has declined. The article doesn't make a value judgement about the Gawker lawsuit, and nobody is "offended". It only contains a statement of fact: "some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit". Now I don't know if that statement is accurate, but I see no reason to doubt it. It's also noteworthy that (as far as I remember) nobody came to Gawker's defence, precisely because it was generally accepted that publishing the tape was wrong. However, the chilling effect isn't necessarily about journalists' fear of no longer being able to publish sex tapes. They are concerned because Gawker ultimately went down not for the indefensible sex tape, but for its treatment of Peter Thiel. This case, if lost, would open pandora's box: You can write an article that is completely accurate, relevant, legal, and important to publish. But if it crosses the wrong billionaire, they can go through all of your archive, pick whatever I-invented-email-nutjob they believe has the best chances with a jury (or ten of them), and bankrupt you.

FloayYerBoat 9y ago
I think my reading comprehension is fine. "...writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit — which some have called the Gawker Effect." "This sends a message that there are wealthy Americans or their proxies willing to push back on a trend toward litigation over negative news stories driven by some of their peers. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, for example, funded the lawsuit against Gawker;" This article is clearly hinting that the Gawker lawsuit had a poor outcome, and fails to mention Gawker's actual liability in the case and why they lost a trial. They also mention that Gawker was just writing "news stories" twice and that is why they were sued. I stand by my original comment.
gozur88 9y ago
>It only contains a statement of fact: "some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit". Is that really a statement of fact, or is what they're shying away from is repeating rumors about and/or invading the privacy of powerful and well-resourced people? I know journalists love to trot out the "chilling effect" canard, but I don't see it much in action for legitimate stories.
- matt4077 9y ago
  They link this article, which says that it almost happened to the R. Kelly "cult" story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-r-kelly-cult-story-almost-never-ran-thank-hulk-hogan-for-that/2017/07/30/19e1f8ea-72c5-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-r-kelly-...

chipotle_coyote 9y ago

Keep in mind, a celebrity did not have enough money to take on a shittly little website in a lawsuit, so even he had to find another backer. That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the backer in question didn't give a shit about Hulk Hogan and his sex tape, beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that he already wanted to take out. (If this was just up to Hogan, he'd likely have taken one of the settlements offered, and almost certainly wouldn't have dropped the claim of "negligent infliction of emotional distress," a move whose only point was to prevent Gawker's insurance company from being able to cover any part of the damages.) In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that Thiel backed several lawsuits against Gawker, including one from the same yoyo who claims to have invented email that's suing Techdirt now. And Thiel won't say if he's bankrolling Ayyuadurai's lawsuit against Techdirt, which is being brought by the same attorney Thiel hired for Hogan. What a strange coincidence! Celebrity rags being sued isn't a precedent; having a billionaire fund other people's lawsuits until he finds one that sticks is. And there's a small but non-zero chance that the lawsuit we're talking about right now is one of those lawsuits, and unlike the Hogan case, the plaintiff is clearly in the wrong. Journalists, and I won't put the snide air quotes around the word, aren't that worried about the "if you publish somebody's leaked sex tape you can get sued for it" part of this matter. They're worried about the other part.

msla 9y ago
> beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that he already wanted to take out. OK, so why did he have it in for Gawker? They outed him as gay against his will while he was in Saudi Arabia. (Edited To Add: I can't find any good cites saying he was in Saudi Arabia at the time, so I don't know one way or the other right now. Regardless, the outing itself was morally wrong, so my argument doesn't change.) That's behavior which should be punished, morally, even if it isn't illegal. It's certainly behavior which anyone with a brain can realize would lead to making the person you outed an enemy. It seems Gawker's main sin was making an enemy of someone who could hurt them, and the injustice here is that most assholes don't have such enemies.
- aetherson 9y ago