Sincerely disagree. Not for Gawker's sake, but because it sets a precedent for rich assholes destroying careers and outlets they disagree with by sponsoring SLAPP(Or close enough to - this tactic is deliberately designed to end-run laws against those) cases. Especially considering it's due to a case that, for reasons I think I already mentioned, they really should have won - Hogan's hit them with a bunch of suits the last few years(IIRC, at least half a dozen, if not more), every single one funded by Thiel, every single one of them(Including both florida and federal cases) has failed till now, every single other time it's been ruled as Newsworthy, and while distasteful, falling under the umbrella of free speech. It's also not the only person Thiel has been funding to do the same thing.
The entire purpose of this had nothing to do with Hogan - It was about either grinding Gawker down or lucking out with a sympathetic judge and winning a case, all to serve Thiel's revenge against them. Which isn't even much of anything to do with Gawker outing him, but almost entirely due to Valleywag shitting on his investments and firm, thus costing them money and reputation.
It's giving a lot of people in the industry the Purple Custard fears, not out of any particular love of Gawker, but primarily because the question going around is "Who's next?" Will it be the NYT for criticizing Tump(Who Thiel is a delegate for, as an aside)? Will it be Adam Baldwin throwing his resources against a gaming outlet, because he's a Gator? Uber - who have already previously talked about planning to attack journalists who publish unfavorable stories, though they backpedaled on the plan - going after Buzzfeed for publishing about their HR issues and other assorted failures, or the Huston Chronicle for publishing negatively about their new predatory sub-prime loan scam scheme?
If you think this is a good thing, I think you might be letting your hatred for Gawker obscure the wider view of the situation, and trust me, it's very much not a pretty sight.
The arguments against taking down Gawker are all using the slippery slope fallacy. Even though this was funded by a shithead, it does not set a precedent by which any rich asshole can take out any journalistic entity they dislike. Look at how tabloids like Enquirer have survived for so long. Look at how "real" newspapers have survived for centuries. You think in all that time, they've never upset a rich or famous person?
Gawker was only vulnerable to this threat because they were such trash. If you don't cross the line 1000 times over like they did, you have nothing to worry about. They deserve what they got.
A detail I forgot to mention previously - the Judge also screwed up the required jury instructions regarding how to determine what is newsworthy. And by screwed up, I mean didn't give them at all, which is literally the precise opposite of the accepted practice for any case relating to freedom of the press, especially in cases like this - something that is practically unheard of in cases of this type.
A detail I forgot to mention previously - the Judge also screwed up the required jury instructions regarding how to determine what is newsworthy. And by screwed up, I mean didn't give them at all, which is literally the precise opposite of the accepted practice for any case relating to freedom of the press, especially in cases like this - something that is practically unheard of in cases of this type.
If that's true, then Gawker would have been able to appeal and win. Calling out and fixing mistakes made in court is what appeals are for.
We complain about legal recourse being too expensive, and it is. But as long as you have enough money that you can afford lawyers, having even more money doesn't matter much. Gawker could afford to defend themselves. They were going to lose that money anyway, so might as well spend ti on lawyers before it gets taken. Still, I'm glad they didn't. The world will be a better place as a result.
A detail I forgot to mention previously - the Judge also screwed up the required jury instructions regarding how to determine what is newsworthy. And by screwed up, I mean didn't give them at all, which is literally the precise opposite of the accepted practice for any case relating to freedom of the press, especially in cases like this - something that is practically unheard of in cases of this type.
If that's true, then Gawker would have been able to appeal and win. Calling out and fixing mistakes made in court is what appeals are for.
AFAIK, they are - the judge denied in April, and it is either currently in the process of issuing the written decision, or currently in the start of the appeal process proper.
Appeals are not instant, in fact, they're an extremely time consuming process, not infrequently taking months and months.
How it goes, IIRC, you have to have the appealing party file a motion to hear the issues again, or appeal to a higher court. Once this is denied(short process, usually about a week), and then denied in writing(The stage we're at now, which takes rather longer, as the judge basically gives a written decision going over everything put up for reconsideration, and then why they made those specific decisions), then you get to file an actual appeal. In this specific case, there's a lot of points for appeal, so it's taking quite a bit of time, and likely will take quite a bit more yet.
Gawker was only vulnerable to this threat because they were such trash. If you don't cross the line 1000 times over like they did, you have nothing to worry about. They deserve what they got.
Yeah, No. Every outlet is vulnerable, because the tactic dodges basically every anti-SLAPP law, and isn't about taking legal victories, just the tried-and-true SLAPP tactic of grinding the opponent down. And not only outlets, pretty much any person or company is vulnerable to the same, when you get right down to it. You, me, NYT, Guardian, Buzzfeed, your Employer, anyone who pisses off someone with enough cash, and the willingness to go through with it.
The arguments against taking down Gawker are all using the slippery slope fallacy.
At least it's not the Fallacy Fallacy. And of course, every rich guy or well-heeled company with an axe to grind against an outlet is just a perfect angel, who would never consider this tactic at all. Never ever ever, god forbid the very thought of it.
Even though this was funded by a shithead, it does not set a precedent by which any rich asshole can take out any journalistic entity they dislike. Look at how tabloids like Enquirer have survived for so long. Look at how "real" newspapers have survived for centuries. You think in all that time, they've never upset a rich or famous person?
Do you really think this is the first time things like this have happened? Why do you even think anti-SLAPP laws exist, for a lark? This is nothing more than an end run around laws that are meant to prevent this type of behavior, don't get so caught up in your dislike for Gawker that you start believing the ends justify the means.
If you think this is a good thing, I think you might be letting your hatred for Gawker obscure the wider view of the situation, and trust me, it's very much not a pretty sight.
Fair enough, I do think Gawker is evil and should be shut down, but it may be clouding my judgement. I don't know enough about SLAPP and the case in question to have an informed decision.
Fair enough, I do think Gawker is evil and should be shut down, but it may be clouding my judgement. I don't know enough about SLAPP and the case in question to have an informed decision.
I dislike them, and want Gawker to go down hard as much as the next guy - but this isn't the way, the risk of the knock-on effects are simply too great.
And to be fair, I am biased, since I work in the media, and however unlikely, this sort of thing can have a pretty direct influence over what I do.
How come Gawker was the only one taken down then? There's no reason to believe any respectable journalistic outfit will fall victim to the same thing. You're just being alarmist.
There's no reason to believe any respectable journalistic outfit will fall victim to the same thing. You're just being alarmist.
If I could roll my eyes any harder, I'd do myself an injury. You simply don't know what you're talking about - you're obsessed with the idea that Gawker is gutter press, but respectability has literally nothing to do with it. It doesn't even matter that it's Gawker, or what they published, or when. That's an irrelevant side-show to the real issue here - the argument would be the same, regardless of which outlet name(or, in fact, rich guy backing the opposition) was attached to the case.
Call me when the thing you are worried about happening actually happens. It won't.
Are you really going to try to tell me that I don't know anything about the industry I'm a professional in? Yeah, righto mate. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
Call me when the thing you are worried about happening actually happens. It won't.
Are you really going to try to tell me that I don't know anything about the industry I'm a professional in? Yeah, righto mate. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
For fucking real, Scott? Churba and every other Media-type/Journalist on this forum (save Jason, who has yet to give an opinion IIRC) has said this is a serious problem. When the press has to worry about their protections being eroded, it creates a chilling effect that makes those protections no longer needed and democracy no longer supported by the fourth estate. This is a BIG issue.
I'm OK living in a world where if you steal someone's private sex tape and publish it for the whole world, you get royally fucked over.
Should the entire corporation suffer for that though? Shouldn't it just be the publisher or editor or CEO who step down instead of dragging down the entire business? The fact that anti-SLAPP laws exist validate Churba's thought on the matter. Gawker is shit, but how come no one has gone after the dozens of other bad publications out there?
You're basically saying that it doesn't matter what the tactics are nor consequences in the legal world just for the sake of Gawker getting shut down. The fact that a known celebrity could get funding from a billionaire to support his legality is the same way Republicans get funded by the Koch Brothers. Everyone knows Hulkster but not Thiel and that's the worrying part.
I'm OK living in a world where if you steal someone's private sex tape and publish it for the whole world, you get royally fucked over.
Point the First: that DVD was SENT to Gawker. Point the Second: out of 30 minutes, Gawker only published 101 seconds, only 9 has any sex in it. Point the Third: Terry Bollea's argument that he hasn't given up his privacy with regards to his sex life is, frankly, crap.
If you are dragged into celebrityhood, then you should be able to get your privacy. But when you actively seek celebrity, you are making yourself a public figure, subject to public scrutiny. Now, traditionally, the sex lives of celebrities are something that most reputable news outlets tend to shy away from covering barring some sort of major scandal. It's past that metaphorical line. But, at the same time, most celebrities don't actively talk about their sex lives. The idea is "Hey, you don't talk about it, we don't talk about it".
Terry talked about it over and over again. Now, he says that the actions of Hulk Hogan are distinct from his own.
But he has been building that brand for decades. Part of being a brand is that it is inseparable from you as a person. Terry Bollea is no more separate from Hulk Hogan than Cherilyn Sarkisian is from Cher, Nicholas Coppola from Nicholas Cage, or Victor Khaze from Victor Frost. The exceptions come from when the core part of the brand is the obfuscation of the person, such as in the case of Daft Punk, DeadMau5, or Lucha wrestlers. And even then it's not always possible.
In the same way that the press will talk about Charlie Sheen's antics, they talked about Terry's because, in the same way Charlie Sheen made his drug use public, Terry made his sex life public. At that point, it was fair game. Was it newsworthy? Well, Do people care about Hulk Hogan? Yes. Do people care about celebrities having sex? You had better believe it.
Now, in my opinion, "Do enough people care about this?" is the bare minimum to qualify for newsworthiness. That's not the case for most major news outlets. For example, the only article the New York Times had relating the sex tape when it came out in 2012 was just a short piece in the fashion section saying that people were tweeting about it. But that's why smaller news outlets exist: not all of the news people care about is hard news. This story definitely wasn't but, if no one cared about it, we wouldn't be here where we are now.
This lawsuit isn't about the sex tape or his invasion of privacy. If that was the case, they'd be suing about the contents of the article too, which goes into much more detail about what was on the tape than what was shown in the little highlight reel. This suit is just a way for Thiel to get his revenge on Gawker and to send a message to the entire media industry to leave him alone or else. And, if he succeeds, that message might as well be from everyone with money and skeletons in their closet.
I'm OK living in a world where if you steal someone's private sex tape and publish it for the whole world, you get royally fucked over.
Should the entire corporation suffer for that though? Shouldn't it just be the publisher or editor or CEO who step down instead of dragging down the entire business? The fact that anti-SLAPP laws exist validate Churba's thought on the matter. Gawker is shit, but how come no one has gone after the dozens of other bad publications out there?
You're basically saying that it doesn't matter what the tactics are nor consequences in the legal world just for the sake of Gawker getting shut down. The fact that a known celebrity could get funding from a billionaire to support his legality is the same way Republicans get funded by the Koch Brothers. Everyone knows Hulkster but not Thiel and that's the worrying part.
Yes, I do like that the whole corporation was shut down. We need more of that, not less. Pretty much any company that commits crimes these days gets, at best, a slap on the wrist. When a company is guilty of something wrong, putting them out of business is the least we should do. Companies fracking and poisoning the water supply? Put the executives in jail AND sue them out of existence. The list of companies that have done evil with no justice is so long, I don't even know where to start. But this shows that there is the ability to punish them severely, so let's extend it.
As for the particular issue of the sex tape. Remember when all those celebrity phones were hacked and naked pics were everywhere? This is basically the same issue. Obviously, information is impossible to contain, and perfect privacy is impossible to achieve. If people are freely distributing things around the Internet, nothing we can do about it, no matter how morally repugnant it is. However, an outfit like Gawker, is attempting to profit from this sort of activity, and that is even more despicable. Also, it creates a scenario where they can actually face consequences. We can't get some guy sharing this stuff on Bittorrent, but we can sure as hell go after someone putting it on a news site with ads next to it. And we should.
Also, not to mention, Jez also put out a bounty on nudes of Lena Dunham(Who, despicable as she is, doesn't deserve that), and a bunch of other nasty shit. Jez is awful.
Yes, I do like that the whole corporation was shut down.
I hate to correct grammar, but you mean "I would like it if that whole corporation was shut down." Since, y'know, it hasn't been shut down, and in fact, hasn't missed so much as a day yet. And likely won't, since Ziff Davis already has a provisional purchase agreement, pending the court-supervised auction process - basically, it's set up so that if nobody else makes a better offer AND ZD doesn't make a better counteroffer, they're obligated to buy. Thus, future tense.
Also, not to mention, Jez also put out a bounty on nudes of Lena Dunham(Who, despicable as she is, doesn't deserve that), and a bunch of other nasty shit. Jez is awful.
I don't think they ever put out a bounty for her nudes (unless it was a separate incident) just pre-photoshop pictures from her Vogue appearance. Not that that's a good thing, but it's an order of magnitude better than nudes.
Also, not to mention, Jez also put out a bounty on nudes of Lena Dunham(Who, despicable as she is, doesn't deserve that), and a bunch of other nasty shit. Jez is awful.
I don't think they ever put out a bounty for her nudes (unless it was a separate incident) just pre-photoshop pictures from her Vogue appearance. Not that that's a good thing, but it's an order of magnitude better than nudes.
Oh yeah, bad memory on my part. I avoid them as much as possible, so it's easy to forget the details of their numerous misdeeds.
The Gawker case seems like the fun jokey event that belies what's really going on.
Here's an article about a wealthy billionaire tying Mother Jones up in court for three years because he didn't like their reporting on his contributions to anti-LGBT causes. Mother Jones eventually won this case-after three years- but getting hundred million judgements against a news site isn't the point, grinding them down is.
Postscript from that article: Vandersloot [...] announced that he was setting up a $1 million fund to pay the legal expenses of people wanting to sue Mother Jones or other members of the "liberal press."
How? Like, I get that Gawker and Jezebel aren't exactly the same site and if that's your argument fine, but how is a "news" site hosting Hogan's sex tape better than nudes passed around online?
Unless you mean the specific underlined on the picture, in which case yeah I'm almost certain it came from some MRA bullshit site but that's what happens when you only spend 10 seconds on google ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comments
The entire purpose of this had nothing to do with Hogan - It was about either grinding Gawker down or lucking out with a sympathetic judge and winning a case, all to serve Thiel's revenge against them. Which isn't even much of anything to do with Gawker outing him, but almost entirely due to Valleywag shitting on his investments and firm, thus costing them money and reputation.
It's giving a lot of people in the industry the Purple Custard fears, not out of any particular love of Gawker, but primarily because the question going around is "Who's next?" Will it be the NYT for criticizing Tump(Who Thiel is a delegate for, as an aside)? Will it be Adam Baldwin throwing his resources against a gaming outlet, because he's a Gator? Uber - who have already previously talked about planning to attack journalists who publish unfavorable stories, though they backpedaled on the plan - going after Buzzfeed for publishing about their HR issues and other assorted failures, or the Huston Chronicle for publishing negatively about their new predatory sub-prime loan scam scheme?
If you think this is a good thing, I think you might be letting your hatred for Gawker obscure the wider view of the situation, and trust me, it's very much not a pretty sight.
Gawker was only vulnerable to this threat because they were such trash. If you don't cross the line 1000 times over like they did, you have nothing to worry about. They deserve what they got.
Appeals are not instant, in fact, they're an extremely time consuming process, not infrequently taking months and months.
How it goes, IIRC, you have to have the appealing party file a motion to hear the issues again, or appeal to a higher court. Once this is denied(short process, usually about a week), and then denied in writing(The stage we're at now, which takes rather longer, as the judge basically gives a written decision going over everything put up for reconsideration, and then why they made those specific decisions), then you get to file an actual appeal. In this specific case, there's a lot of points for appeal, so it's taking quite a bit of time, and likely will take quite a bit more yet. Yeah, No. Every outlet is vulnerable, because the tactic dodges basically every anti-SLAPP law, and isn't about taking legal victories, just the tried-and-true SLAPP tactic of grinding the opponent down. And not only outlets, pretty much any person or company is vulnerable to the same, when you get right down to it. You, me, NYT, Guardian, Buzzfeed, your Employer, anyone who pisses off someone with enough cash, and the willingness to go through with it. At least it's not the Fallacy Fallacy. And of course, every rich guy or well-heeled company with an axe to grind against an outlet is just a perfect angel, who would never consider this tactic at all. Never ever ever, god forbid the very thought of it. Do you really think this is the first time things like this have happened? Why do you even think anti-SLAPP laws exist, for a lark? This is nothing more than an end run around laws that are meant to prevent this type of behavior, don't get so caught up in your dislike for Gawker that you start believing the ends justify the means.
And to be fair, I am biased, since I work in the media, and however unlikely, this sort of thing can have a pretty direct influence over what I do.
On that note: These 10 Stories Are Exactly Why We Need Gawker
You're basically saying that it doesn't matter what the tactics are nor consequences in the legal world just for the sake of Gawker getting shut down. The fact that a known celebrity could get funding from a billionaire to support his legality is the same way Republicans get funded by the Koch Brothers. Everyone knows Hulkster but not Thiel and that's the worrying part.
Something that slipped by me earlier - If you didn't already think it wasn't a straight-up SLAPP suit, or Hogan's victory, Hogan is, after he's already won, already trying to sue Gawker again with Thiel's backing.
Point the Second: out of 30 minutes, Gawker only published 101 seconds, only 9 has any sex in it.
Point the Third: Terry Bollea's argument that he hasn't given up his privacy with regards to his sex life is, frankly, crap.
If you are dragged into celebrityhood, then you should be able to get your privacy. But when you actively seek celebrity, you are making yourself a public figure, subject to public scrutiny. Now, traditionally, the sex lives of celebrities are something that most reputable news outlets tend to shy away from covering barring some sort of major scandal. It's past that metaphorical line. But, at the same time, most celebrities don't actively talk about their sex lives. The idea is "Hey, you don't talk about it, we don't talk about it".
Terry talked about it over and over again. Now, he says that the actions of Hulk Hogan are distinct from his own.
But he has been building that brand for decades.
Part of being a brand is that it is inseparable from you as a person. Terry Bollea is no more separate from Hulk Hogan than Cherilyn Sarkisian is from Cher, Nicholas Coppola from Nicholas Cage, or Victor Khaze from Victor Frost. The exceptions come from when the core part of the brand is the obfuscation of the person, such as in the case of Daft Punk, DeadMau5, or Lucha wrestlers. And even then it's not always possible.
In the same way that the press will talk about Charlie Sheen's antics, they talked about Terry's because, in the same way Charlie Sheen made his drug use public, Terry made his sex life public. At that point, it was fair game. Was it newsworthy? Well, Do people care about Hulk Hogan? Yes. Do people care about celebrities having sex? You had better believe it.
Now, in my opinion, "Do enough people care about this?" is the bare minimum to qualify for newsworthiness. That's not the case for most major news outlets. For example, the only article the New York Times had relating the sex tape when it came out in 2012 was just a short piece in the fashion section saying that people were tweeting about it. But that's why smaller news outlets exist: not all of the news people care about is hard news. This story definitely wasn't but, if no one cared about it, we wouldn't be here where we are now.
This lawsuit isn't about the sex tape or his invasion of privacy. If that was the case, they'd be suing about the contents of the article too, which goes into much more detail about what was on the tape than what was shown in the little highlight reel. This suit is just a way for Thiel to get his revenge on Gawker and to send a message to the entire media industry to leave him alone or else. And, if he succeeds, that message might as well be from everyone with money and skeletons in their closet.
As for the particular issue of the sex tape. Remember when all those celebrity phones were hacked and naked pics were everywhere? This is basically the same issue. Obviously, information is impossible to contain, and perfect privacy is impossible to achieve. If people are freely distributing things around the Internet, nothing we can do about it, no matter how morally repugnant it is. However, an outfit like Gawker, is attempting to profit from this sort of activity, and that is even more despicable. Also, it creates a scenario where they can actually face consequences. We can't get some guy sharing this stuff on Bittorrent, but we can sure as hell go after someone putting it on a news site with ads next to it. And we should.
Here's an article about a wealthy billionaire tying Mother Jones up in court for three years because he didn't like their reporting on his contributions to anti-LGBT causes. Mother Jones eventually won this case-after three years- but getting hundred million judgements against a news site isn't the point, grinding them down is.
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit
Postscript from that article: Vandersloot [...] announced that he was setting up a $1 million fund to pay the legal expenses of people wanting to sue Mother Jones or other members of the "liberal press."
Unless you mean the specific underlined on the picture, in which case yeah I'm almost certain it came from some MRA bullshit site but that's what happens when you only spend 10 seconds on google ¯\_(ツ)_/¯