Some questions for those who are cheering Gawker's demise

boing
106

This kind of suit highlights how I think most people seem to let concerns about privacy manifest in dysfunctional ways.

An example I used last year WRT to an encryption story was that if the average USian had the option of either having the privacy of their communications or finance compromised, or be seen on the toilet, that most would give up their other more pragmatic forms of privacy in favor of not being seen on the toilet - despite the fact that the latter makes no real difference to anything in their future or daily life.

So, living in a culture as I do where companies can buy and sell rights to my information without my involvement, and I have little to no recourse, I think it’s hollow to suggest that people seeing anyone having sex is somehow worth millions of dollars in damages. I agree that violating an expectation of privacy is ethically wrong, but I disagree that there are any damages other than the participants feelings of embarrassment, which speaks more of their own values than that of the voyeurs.

2 Likes
107

I’m only insisting that you prove it’s rape if you’re going to use the term rape without a qualifier. Otherwise you’re being dishonest and inflammatory. It’s significantly different to say they posted a sex tape vs they posted a rape video. That would significantly change what, if any, compensation were required. You’re painting them in a worse light without appearing to have done any checking to see if there’s validity to claim that it was in fact a rape video. You don’t seem interested in providing any citations at all, so I don’t expect your response to actual address this issue.

I don’t know that it ruined her life. Do you have a recent follow up article or interview that you can point me to that shows how she is doing today? Yes, it was a dick move and I disapprove of it, but I’m not going speculate on a settlement or monetary punishment for a situation I haven’t looked into as well as I have the Bollea case.

I definitely believe that Bollea doesn’t deserve an absurdly high amount of money as determined not by a court of law but by six legally untrained jurors in a lawsuit funded for the purpose of bankrupting Gawker (remember, Thiel is funding other lawsuits against Gawker as well - this wasn’t a one-off) I don’t feel that the jurors should be trusted to determine if something is constitutional or not and the newsworthiness question definitely falls into the category. I don’t feel a has-been celebrity whose privacy may have been violated deserves greater remuneration than the family of a victim of wrongful death. I don’t think it’s possible to prove that Bollea suffered $115 in damages as a result of the supposed violation. I don’t believe Gawker should have to pay anything until the appeal is addressed because it’s possible the amount will be reduced and therefore the bankruptcy wouldn’t have been necessary and Thiel’s goal wouldn’t have been achieved. I don’t think courts should allow themselves to become weapons of millionaires and billionaires looking to squash the Constitutional rights of others because it creates a slippery slope where people like Trump can silence legitimate criticism by just suing them into non-existence regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.

Who said anything about overturning our legal system? I’m saying the legal system didn’t work the way it should have here. I want it to actual work rather than be broken. But I also said we’ll see what happens on appeal. That’s also letting the system work instead of overturning. And the judge could have allowed the $50 million retainer not to be paid and prevented the bankruptcy that may not have been necessary should the appeal have gone through.

If the appeal goes through and the verdict is overturned or the amount is reduced significantly, will you accept the way the system is working or will you change your mind because the outcome you appear to support didn’t occur?

And I’ll need another citation that you’re not going to provide. Where did I say that I like Gawker? I explained why I support their position in this particular case already. You’re choosing to ignore it. I’ll repeat it so you can ignore it again:

108

I know you only demand citations for the obvious, but yes in a jury trial juries set damages. It’s good you know what’s fair and unfair for everyone in the world, and who is “trained” enough to determine whether a judgment is fair or not (except the girl who might have been raped on the video gawker posted after her and her father begged them not to – that you can’t hazard a guess without “indesputiable proof of rape”, or even accept that it hurt her, without a citation, as denying the obvious is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Even Gawker has more dignity in this affair than you have demonstrated here, and they would be revolted by your comments.

2 Likes
109

Um, no. I actually requested citation for the unobvious, like whether a “possible rape” was a rape or not since you seemed to think it was obvious.

When did I say I knew that? I said I had a belief in this scenario. Where did I claim I knew anything for everyone in the world? Your hyperbole is out of control and I’m tired of how much you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said.

So now you know what Gawker thinks, even though Gawker isn’t a single individual?

I was just being honest about how I couldn’t make a financial compensation determination for a case I hadn’t looked into thoroughly and didn’t have all the facts for. That’s called being rational. You seem to think you can read an account of the scenario and know it was definitively rape (though you’ve finally and without acknowledgement backed off from calling it rape) when you should know you don’t have enough information to make that determination. I called my positions on the Bollea case opinion and never claimed they were facts. But more information about the Bollea case is available than for the possible rape video incident, so it’s easier to have an opinion about the Bollea case. I will not take a position that you want me to take for or against anything relating to the possible rape video (other than to say what I have already said, that it was wrong to post it and it was right to take it down). Your arguments are devolving into ad hominem attacks, so that generally signals that the discussion is coming to a close.

If you do have what you feel is enough information to prove or even to say that it most likely was rape, I have already invited you to share that information. That you’re uninterested in doing so or to address why you’re so certain I’m a terrible person for not drawing the unsupported conclusions that you have drawn seems to indicate that you have no concern for the substance of what I say and that means we can’t have a rational discussion. Good day to you sir. I’m done.

111

This is…odd.

3 Likes
112

It’s assholes all the way down.

5 Likes
113

Well there’s a straw man argument if ever I saw one. If Gawker (can a company rape someone?) or the reporter raped someone then yeah sure draw comparisons. Otherwise you have wholly avoided touching on any of the questions raised by BB. There are clearly doubts as to whether any criminal activity actually happened so it isn’t even in the same ballpark of a convicted rapist.

114

I like your line of thought and agree those acts you mention and Gawker publishing what the hell they like is definitely deplorable, but shouldn’t the outcome be much less than $140million? I would like to know how that figure was got to. Wouldn’t someone need to sit and work out just exactly how much profit Gawker has made from that one incident? Or how much financial damage has been caused to Hulk Hogan? Proving that Hulk Hogan has lost $140million in potential earnings for the rest of his life seems like an impossible task.

115

A woman who had documentation of her rape published online, also without her consent is feeling more than embarassment.

I can understand how you for fun dance around some topics but you come off as very lacking in empathy on these topics and shutting down or being dismissive rather than even trying to understand on any level. At the best possible reading, it’s intellectually lazy.

1 Like
116

That’s news to me. Either that or I forgot, since it was quite a few months ago that I read about this. My understanding has been that the suit was by one person who was complaining about consensual sex being publicized, not that it had anything to do with rape. If a woman was raped, then why have I instead been reading about how the crime here was Hogan’s privacy?

I am not sure if I understand what you mean by “fun dancing around” or “these topics”.

Yes, I was being dismissive. Quite directly so. I am critical of the hypocritical ways that privacy is defined and selectively protected in the US, as well as people’s neurotic attitudes about sexuality. What I knew about this case - which I suppose is admittedly not much - has seemed to occupy an intersection of those attitudes.

Is this being discussed here at many different levels? I could say that it’s also intellectually lazy to be making personal remarks about me instead of pointing out facts or considerations that my earlier post might have been missing.

117
3 Likes
118

I think you’re confused. Gawker didn’t ruin Bollea’s career. His own actions did. Gawker just revealed them.

He said regrettable things in a moment in which his life was falling down to pieces, and he thought he was having a private conversation. I am sure that you’ve said bad things at some point, as I have. I do not support Bollea’s racism, but I think it’s unfair to judge him by what he said at a stressful moment in private. We don’t always think clearly in such moments. If he indeed is a racist he will at some point express it in clearer circumstances, or his brain will work well enough to restrain him from speaking inappropriate things in public. Either works for me.

See also: Edward Snowden didn’t make the US less secure, the NSA’s illegal practices did & Chelsea Manning didn’t commit war crimes, the soldiers whose actions she revealed did.

Different categories entirely. A random guy’s bedroom trash talk isn’t remotely comparable to Snowden’s actions.

Publishing excerpts of a sex tape is nowhere near the severity of running someone over with a car while drunk. DUI and vehicular assault are criminal acts.

Okay. My point is that Gawker’s contribution to journalism is neither here nor there. If somebody does wrong, doing something else right doesn’t absolve them of responsibility.

If Daulerio doesn’t have millions of dollars, then freezing his accounts is like beating a kid up because he didn’t have any lunch money to steal. If punishment were warranted, it should only be borne by Gawker because Daulerio was working for Gawker.

This seems like an unrelated matter to me. I don’t know the details of this, but again, if it shouldn’t have happened it’s the matter of the court, law, or judge needing getting fixed.

So if Bollea knew that he was being filmed, would your opinion be different?

Yep. I should note that Gawker sabotaged their own case for it being newsworthy during the trial. That was what the 4 year old tape deal was about. It’s not just a tasteless statement, but one that says that they don’t care about it being newsworthy, only about it being juicy and controversial.

They would likely have got off a lot lighter if they hadn’t made complete asses of themselves in court. This is not ideal, but it’s a reality that making the jury hate you isn’t likely to make things go your way, even if the legal side of things checks out.

Go to the legaladvice subreddit and see how many times people are told: you can’t ignore a court summons, and behaving like a jerk in court is suicidal.

119

I know you aren’t a details person, but this was a civil case, so criminal liability is not the analogy being made. Criminality isn’t even a question in a civil case, so your there are " clearly doubts as to whether any criminal activity actually happened " just proves you have no idea what you are talking about, none. It is perfectly clear. There is no criminal activity. None was alleged. Do you even know what case we are talking about?

The analogy being made is “is it far to suffer serious consequences from a single error in judgment” and the answer is yes, if the error in judgment has serious consequences. That happens every day to everyone in the world. But I do like that you commented without understanding the case, my post, or even what your own phrases mean. It’s a very solid internet comment, and I salute you .

1 Like
120

It’s the prerogative of Bollea’s sponsors/partners to decide what they want to judge him on. Generally, I would say what someone says in private is more honest and thus more revealing about his character. I don’t say racist shit when I’m in private because I don’t default to thinking racism is okay when I’m not in public. Bollea revealed his true self when speaking candidly. But honestly, I don’t care if he’s racist because I don’t care about celebrities or has-been celebrities. I do care about freedom of press rights being undermined by billionaires with grudges and law firm war chests.

You’re welcome to that opinion, but that doesn’t mean that Gawker’s actions weren’t constitutionally protected.

Um, juicy and controversial could very well be included in the definition of newsworthy. I personally disagree, but neither I, nor you, nor a jury of six random people, should get to decide what is newsworthy with millions of dollars, a bunch of jobs and livelihoods, and the 1st Amendment on the line.

But the jury hating someone is grounds for overturning a verdict by a court if it can be shown the the jury inserted emotion rather than rational legal consideration into their decision. It’s not smart to be flippant in court or during a deposition, but pretending that all people will stop being human because of these legal structures we’ve built is rather absurd.

1 Like
121

As usual, Popehat gets this one right:

In short, I’ll continue to lose sleep over what has always been an unstable justice system and continue to sleep well knowing Gawker is dead.

7 Likes
122

You’re welcome to that opinion, but that doesn’t mean that Gawker’s actions weren’t constitutionally protected.

That’s not what I meant. I mean that whatever positives Gawker’s existence might have had don’t work to cancel out any wrongdoing on their part. I believe the second sentence explained that, but I guess I have to really cover my bases here.

Um, juicy and controversial could very well be included in the definition of newsworthy. I personally disagree, but neither I, nor you, nor a jury of six random people, should get to decide what is newsworthy with millions of dollars, a bunch of jobs and livelihoods, and the 1st Amendment on the line.

Like I said, Gawker sabotaged their own case. If you want to blame somebody, blame them. In a court you have to defend yourself, and being legally in the right isn’t enough. You have to do your work for your own sake, because neither the judge nor the opposition is going to do it for you.

But the jury hating someone is grounds for overturning a verdict by a court if it can be shown the the jury inserted emotion rather than rational legal consideration into their decision.

Legally it does matter whether you do something by accident or intentionally, and whether you take steps to minimize damage or not. Gawker refused to take down a video that was ordered to be taken down by a court order. You can’t expect that to go well.

It equally matters when you contradict yourself. Gawker was for instance cited their own posts about considering the same thing done to women deplorable, and then they went and did the same thing they had condemned. If you say a sex tape of a woman isn’t newsworthy it’s going to be hard to argue that a man’s is afterwards.

123

You keep insisting that someone prove that video is rape – it’s patently offensive and bizarre. I realize there is no limit to what you would say to defend Gawker, but this is a sick rabbit hole no one will go down with you. The people who work at Gawker made mistakes and it may have cost them their jobs ultimately, but no human with even a quasi-normal psychology is willing to entertain your sick arguments. I give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that would agree it was a horrible mistake while you keep demanding proof. This is not the society we live in, and that’s a good thing. You should be ashamed of yourself.

1 Like
124

I work for a magazine. We have been subject to a few lawsuits. They often have to do with ego and not facts. The threat of lawsuits is in the mind of a magazine. It is good in that it forces you to be sure you have your facts correct. It is bad it that you may decide to not cover a topic because even if successfully defend yourself against a lawsuit you are probably looking at a multimillion dollar legal bill plus the drain on resources and spirit that is better put into putting out a good publication. When you are dealing with very wealthy people they know that legal fees alone can knock out many publications, so simply suing someone, even if poorly founded, can do a log of damage. Here is one article about us being sued https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1991/10/17/magazine-apologizes-in-3rd-suit/a719ee17-b32f-40d0-a2d0-105c8a35358a/ and another by our long time editor about lawsuits http://jacklimpert.com/2013/12/my-favorite-lawyer-moment-2/. These were before my time so I don’t have any war stories of my own. This also reminds me to be thankful that we don’t have the lax libel standards of England, it was a big story when David Irving sued for libel and lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving.

3 Likes
125

Nope. You’re (intentionally?) misconstruing what I’ve said. I have only asked you to prove it since you seem to insist that it is definitely rape, but from what I can observe, neither you nor I have enough information to make that determination. How is it sick to want you to be honest and accurate in your portrayal of the scenarios you’re referring to? And you keep bringing it up. I’m fine with letting that issue go because you are clearly not interested in understanding the nuance. I also stated at the very beginning that I didn’t consider it relevant to the case at hand but you keep bringing it up. Why are you obsessed with that possible rape video?

It’s not Gawker I’m defending. It’s the 1st Amendment. Gawker just happens to be the current poster child for it, regardless of whether I agree with their editorial choices (which I have already said repeatedly that I do not).

I’m very ashamed of myself for you misconstruing my position. Should I go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done?

Again, I’m done. Feel free to respond. Feel free to continue to misconstrue my position and obsess about a tangential issue and the strawman you feel like shaming. I won’t be responding further.

1 Like
126

Popehat chimed in as well- https://popehat.com/2016/08/18/gawker-money-speech-and-justice/

2 Likes