Gawker died because when someone asked if they had any decency, any concern and respect for a person's private life, they responded with a resounding absolutely not. Gawker died because they basically became the media version of Roy Cohn.

https://www.hiti.fr/2016/images/hulk-hogan-gawker.jpg They were a bit arrogant.

This is what's called a "chilling effect." Sure, the next paper might not get put out of business if Tiel decideds to sue them, but an editor could loose his job for publishing the story that pissed him off.

Do you understand the situation with Gawker at all?

The “chilling” effect is really just not publishing private sex tapes (just for views, mind you) and refusing to take them down when ordered to... also not outing gay people. In other words, a bit of common decency.

There is a monumental difference between that and writing a negative article.

The “chilling” effect is not self imploding your news organization by doing stupid things over and over.

Actually, the chilling effect is due to that the lawsuit against Gawker only went as far as it did because Hogan teamed up with Peter Thiel, who had a personal vendetta against them over a story they had written about him. By all accounts, the issue was going nowhere until he got involved and funded Hogan. Thiel has now turned his attention on other outlets, currently attacking Techdirt for the (true) stories they wrote about Shiva Ayyaduria (who Thiel was also helping in a lawsuit against Gawker, among numerous other suits he was financing). That's the important part here - lots of lawsuits, some much more frivolous than others - were being launched because a billionaire doesn't like the outlet. If the Hogan case didn't bury them, he had plenty more lined up until something did.

What's being exposed is a situation where pissing off the wrong guy can bury companies in court (and legal fees even if they're found innocent), and that it's too easy for one rich guy with a vendetta to do this. The issue is muddied because Gawker were clearly in the wrong, both legally and morally, with the Hogan tape. But, this will still have a chilling effect on people writing factually and morally correct articles if they fear they'll piss off the wrong guy. That's the issue - Thiel is going around trying to shut down media outlets he doesn't like, the fact that Gawker were a horrible outlet to begin with doesn't negate that.

"There is a monumental difference between that and writing a negative article."

Yes, and his current target wrote negative articles about his current client, articles that are backed by solid evidence that they are true. Nothing Techdirt has said is demonstrably false, and their attacks on Shiva's claims are always backed by verifiable evidence. The Techdirt case is far more defensible than the Gawker one, but the same principles apply, as does the chilling effect it will be having on other outlets.

But people should be blaming Gawker not Tiel.

I don't think you are the only one. I imagine the courts would have the same opinion.

You're not the only one.

> but Gawker died because of Gawker, not just because some rich guy went after them.

No. Gawker died because of a billionaire who wanted to take it down and the mass PR firm he hired to get people on his side on social media.

Also, the top comments on this thread are repeating the same lies over and over again.

> publishing an illegaly-obtained sex tape in its entirety

Was it illegal? Then why isn't the gawker people in prison?

> and refusing to take it down after a judge orders to do so?

They have a right to refuse an unconstitutional order and their refusal was vindicated by the courts.

"The injunction was quickly stayed on appeal, and was denied in 2014 by the appeals court, which ruled that under the circumstances it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker

The courts ruled that the judge's injunction violated FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.

The top comments in this thread repeat the same debunked lies over and over again. But I guess that's the power of billionaires and their PR firms. A lie repeated over and over again becomes the truth?

You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject, but people also have the right to judge you for that. You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial. They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value."

On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.

> You have the right to appeal a temporary injunction for your sex tape and publish it without the approval of the subject

I know. That's my point. Not only that, the appeals court ruled in favor of gawkers.

> but people also have the right to judge you for that.

Sure...

>You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial.

No I'm not. I actually addressed it.

> They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value."

No. That's not why they lost. Trials are FICKLE.

> On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.

What does this have to do with "revenge porn"?

I've looked at the facts of the case, and it seems clear to me that Gawker was guilty of an invasion of privacy, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Can you give me an argument, based on the facts of the case, that Gawker did not commit those violations?

What about he whole "Gawker lost the trial" part? That seems to be rather neglected in this explanation...

> What about he whole "Gawker lost the trial" part?

Nothing. What's your point? As I said, JURIES aren't infallible.

The prosecutors lost the case against OJ simpson. What's your point?

> That seems to be rather neglected in this explanation...

No. The point is that someone who had NOTHING to do with the hogan case decided to inject themselves and use their money to bankrupt a company.

Okay?

The way they "injected themselves" into the case was by funding the legal fees. Gawker lost in a court of law. If your contention is that the jury was wrong, then your issue should be with the court system, not with the fact that someone paid to take Gawker to court.

Gawker had a fair trial in a US court of law and it lost. If that didn't happen it couldn't go out of business.

I think it's interesting (in a "train accident" sort of way) how many downvotes without any counter-argument you're getting...

> I think it's interesting (in a "train accident" sort of way) how many downvotes without any counter-argument you're getting...

Not only that. If you look at the replies, there is a "core group" who are repeating the SAME THING over and over again. The same debunked lies.

I'm not a fan of gawker. I'm not that sad that they aren't around. But what I am shocked by is that it was taken out by a vindictive billionaire with an agenda. It's surprising how a select group of accounts are attacking me for pointing that out.

There were TONS of websites that published all or parts of the sex tape before gawker. And yet, thiel went after gawker.

Apparently, a site being attacked and bankrupted by a vindictive billionaire is a praise worthy thing in a free society to a select group of people on HN.

It's a very strange thing to behold.

the distinction seems to be that you believe that Thiel's presence surrenders some sort of imaginary moral high ground that leaves Gawker in the clear despite reprehensible behavior. this is relatively senseless when examined flatly