The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’

Re:The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’ by tptacek on Sunday July 30, 2017 @10:43PM (#14889148)

You mean, as long as you're not posting material that someone can claim is libelous or has no value.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’ by Sacho on Monday July 31, 2017 @07:35AM (#14891000)

Also, as long as you're not being sued in a district that's extremely friendly to the celebrity. And as long as you're not proudly defying a court order[0]. Or butchering your case with ridiculous testimony[1]. And as long as you're not giving the finger to everyone every step of the way so you have powerful enemies who are willing to fund the incredibly long process that will take you down. And as long as you don't realize that the decision sets no precedent as Gawker settled instead of appealing(pretty much any lawyer analysis concluded it was very likely to be struck down on appeal).

But yeah, it just MIGHT happen to you. I believe newspaper writers should also reconsider the threat of lightning strikes, I hear they kill people every year.

Gawker acted like a petulant child that was appalled it was getting punished by an admittedly broken and hypocritical system. This does not mean other people now need to fear the system anymore than they should have feared it before - its brokenness was not magically illuminated by Gawker. There are so many cases of defamation lawfare that anti-SLAPP statutes exist(bonus points not in all states!) and there are several high-prominence FA lawyers who write about the issue and organize a defense for it.

If the newspaper writers were somehow unaware of this before Gawker(including all the small-time blogs which get ruined by defamation lawfare because they cannot afford representation - essentially what happened to Gawker here, just on a larger scale), then they were blind to reality.

[0] - http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...

[1] - http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’ by slavik81 on Monday July 31, 2017 @03:45AM (#14890160)

Gawker was not destroyed by merely fighting a lawsuit. They were destroyed by losing a lawsuit. They were bankrupted by damages only after the court heard both sides in detail and concluded the plaintiff's claim was legitimate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’ by sdoering on Monday July 31, 2017 @03:57AM (#14890201)

Well then you should have your proof in order and let the court decide. That's what a justice system is for.

As someone having the ability to ruin anybody with what you type into a keyboard you should be held to as high a standard as possible.

I worked in this environment years ago and I still feel tainted by association. Imho most of the so called free press has no right to be privileged at all.

What I would call journalism on the other hand should be able to operate unharmed and as free as possible (but as said above) nor unchecked.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’ by mmjaa on Monday July 31, 2017 @06:56AM (#14890851)

One claim is as good as another. Why should those who have mass-media powers claims' be considered more valid than those who don't have these powers?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’ by pvg on Monday July 31, 2017 @07:17AM (#14890918)

One claim is as good as another.

They aren't, which is why we have things like journalism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The R. Kelly ‘cult’ story and the ‘Gawker Effect’ by mmjaa on Monday July 31, 2017 @07:31AM (#14890977)

.. and thats why its good when those claims that are less valid are called out as such, especially from so-called 'journalistic sources' who should know better if they wish to keep their coveted spot by the throne.

[ Parent | on HN ]