It wasn't until a long string of lawsuits by various celebs that tabloids like the Enquirer and TV shows like Entertainment Tonight had to scale back on the gossip and outright lies they used to delight in (though it looks like Richard Simmons will be filing a lawsuit after this week's issue). Gawker is the digital version of what we endured through the 80s and 90s in print form (how many issues of those rags contained headlines about Elvis being alive, Hitler being alive, Elvis and Hitler living together, Elvis having Hitler's lovechild?). It doesn't have to be accurate or newsworthy, it just has to lead to page-views. The 1st Amendment says the government cannot censor any citizen; it does not stipulate that others cannot sue for libel, slander, defamation, etc. Gawker had the freedom to post a sex tape and Hulk Hogan had the freedom to sue them for doing so. And now Gawker is bankrupt financially (they were already morally bankrupt); that is literally the cost of doing business the way they did. The 1st Amendment has not been damaged in the slightest; all that has happened is an organization has been held accountable.
The only remaining issue seems to be that the guy who financed Hogan's lawsuit had an axe to grind with Gawker. I just don't find that in any way relevant to the verdict. On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:10 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, this helps me make my point more clearly. I am less worried about > Thiel and rich guys in this context. If someone or something does something > legally wrong, then they should pay; the fact that rich people are more > likely to get this kind of justice than middle class or poor people is a > big problem, but that is a different problem and not particularly specific > to the press. > > I am more worried that the court allowed this kind of law suit to go > forward - or (I did not follow the specifics of the case closely) maybe > that certain rulings were made that allowed the jury to find for the > plaintiff. > > I am currently engaged in a conflict with my employer that was covered in > a few media outlets (the case is trivial for almost everyone, but pretty > major to the parties involved). In one of the published stories a claim was > made about me that was patently false and potentially damaging. I was > irritated for a day or two, but would never have considered suing the > paper; I realize that a free press, even one that makes mistakes through > carelessness, or even motivated by interest, is better for me as a citizen > than punishing every mistake or error of fact or judgement. > > Was Bollea a public figure? Is it permissible for news outlets to publish > embarrassing private material about public figures? Is Gawker a news > outlet? If the answer to these three questions is all "yes", then the > lawsuit and its aftermath have all done harm to the idea and practice of a > free press. > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM, 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> This gets into a couple of points: >> As the email conduct in question took place while she was the Secretary >> of State, a suit against the Times on that basis would be a more polite >> version of the implicit threat of a Trump Department of Justice going after >> the owner of The Washington Post. >> >> The concern here is about the wealthy having outsize influence on >> journalistic outlets and using that to impose their will irrespective of >> reality. Thiel is out for revenge, and if he didn't find it through >> Bollea's case, he'd likely have tried it again elsewhere. Bullying by >> lawsuit is troublesome, whether or not the bullies would be violating the >> 1st Amendment. >> >> David >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* PGage <[email protected]> >> *To:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 11, 2016 2:09 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Gawker exploring options, including sale >> >> I am not sure about this. Could Hillary Clinton sue the NYT for >> publishing private and embarrassing details about how she handled her >> email? No - because the law suit would be thrown out on the basis, >> basically, of the First Amendment. >> >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jon Delfin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Point of order: The First Amendment clause about freedom of the press >> doesn't apply here. This is not a case where a governmental body took >> action against a journalist or news source. This lawsuit was brought by an >> individual, supported financially by another individual. >> >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In terms of 1st Amendment interests I think Kevin is wrong, and Mark is >> right; Freedom of the Press is exactly as healthy as the well being of >> obnoxious and embarrassing publishers. But Kevin's point goes to the heart >> of the underlying matter: Does freedom of the press cover publishing >> somebody's private sexual acts? I am less worried about a pissed rich guy >> funding Bollea than I am the implications of the verdict in this case. >> Obviously Gawker is horrible, and no decent decision maker should have let >> them publish that tape. But I do think the benefits of a free society in >> which horrible people can make horrible decisions like this outweigh the >> harm. I think I could have lived with it if the award had been a >> significant but sustainable fraction of Gawker's working capital, allowing >> them to stay in business. >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This has been sitting in my inbox to be responded to. And the short >> version was if you endorse the idea that you can censor via lawyers and >> pocket books, then I think you don't believe in as free of a press as you >> think you do. >> >> You won, Kevin. Hope you're happy. >> >> >> http://www.recode.net/2016/6/10/11903764/gawker-bankruptcy-chapter-11-sale-ziff-davis >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:29 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Mark Jeffries <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> But if a rich idiot throws their money around to get rid of Gawker, what >> makes you think someone won't try to go after a media source you approve >> of? The First Amendment means you gotta hold your nose when it comes to >> some media. I may not like Fox News, but I'd rather see the public decide >> that they choose not to watch, instead of some rich schmuck trying to sue >> them out of business. >> >> >> A quick look at the Gawker homepage and this is the top story: >> What a Series of Cosmic Evangelical Thrillers Tells Us About Money in >> America >> <http://gawker.com/what-a-series-of-cosmic-evangelical-thrillers-tells-us-1779607605>Below >> that was a link to: >> Watch A Car Run Over A Motorcycle In This Florida Road Rage >> <http://lanesplitter.jalopnik.com/watch-a-car-run-over-a-motorcycle-in-this-florida-road-1779633188>Or >> how about the post to the right of that: >> >> The Best Memorial Day Deals: Laser Printers, Cheap ThinkPad, Golfing >> Gear, and More >> <http://deals.kinja.com/the-best-memorial-day-deals-laser-printers-cheap-thin-1779478634> >> I'm not picking and choosing; just looking at the first items on their >> homepage. Not news. Not worried if they run out of money and get shut down. >> >> The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of the press to say and print >> whatever they want without government censorship, but it is not a blanket >> protection against any consequences of what is said or printed. People can >> be held accountable for their words... as well as their videos of aging >> wrestler sex. >> >> >> -- >> Kevin M. (RPCV) >> -- >> >> -- >> -- >> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "TV or Not TV" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
