Techdirt Podcast Episode 88: The Gawker Debate
from the free-speech dept
Gawker's gone, and that's that. And yet, whenever we've expressed concerns over the billionaire vendetta that brought it down, we've faced a huge amount of pushback from people who had problems with the site and its reporting practices. This week, we're joined by Parker Thompson aka Startup L. Jackson for a friendly debate about whether the Gawker shutdown really is a big deal.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: first amendment, hulk hogan, parker thompson, podcast
Companies: gawker
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Of course
Of course! It is very easy to get people to agree to removing everyone's rights the moment someone does something they do not like.
The same logic has justified Slavery, Murder, Theft, and all manor of ill activity and Government Tyranny. Why do you think the first attempt everyone makes against their enemies is the present them in a bad light? Once you do that, it is shocking easy to get people to do the wrong thing because "they had it coming".
If you will not protect liberty for a dirt bag, then you are also rejecting liberty for the innocent. You want people to give up liberty? Just tell them you cannot stop the bad people without it and over they roll.
Every Nation gets the Government it DESERVES! There is no exception!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the playing field was level, Gawker lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something I can't quite figure: everyone keeps saying Gawker got brought down by billionaire etc etc... but when I look at it subjectively it was really the damages awarded by the court or similar (I'm massively paraphrasing; didn't follow everything in detail). So while the case against Gawker was bankrolled by the wealthy (the lawyer fees at least), it was all down to whether the courts ruled against Gawker. In this case it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the case.
Did a billionaire really influence the court's decision or did the court bring Gawker down? If it's the former, surely the bigger issue is the court being compromised/influenced? Yet I keep seeing people say that Thiel succeeded while he only played a role that the courts ended up agreeing with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it was this one court decision that brought down Gawker, but that decision wouldn't have happened if it were not for the billionaire.
Here's why: (1) Jurisdiction shopping: previously the case was rejected by 2 courts as clearly First Amendment protected. Having lots of extra cash meant being able to keep shopping until you find a judge (the most reversed judge in the state, btw) who agrees with you. (2) It wasn't just this lawsuit, but the piling on of multiple bogus lawsuits, which added up the legal fees for Gawker. (3) The support of the billionaire made it possible for Hogan and the lawyers to make some... weird judicial decisions, such as rejecting a massive settlement offer and dropping specific charges that got the insurance company out of the case (normally you want the insurance company to cover to get more money).
So, yes, in the end a judicial decision (one that will almost certainly be overturned) brought it down, but that was only possible because of a billionaire dead set on destroying the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Personally, I feel Gawker's practices meant it was just a matter of time when the dice rolled against them or they offended someone powerful enough (don't out people; it's their lives).
Legally/objectively (free-speech-aly), I can understand the problem in how it was done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i can't get behind them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]