Support NeoGAF

[TheCochese]

It's vile that in the wake of a small movement surrounding abuses of sexual assault, the article chooses to deify an news outlet that put up a woman's video of potential rape and scolded her when she requested it be taken down.

Thank you, I was just about to point that out.

 

[Kinyou]

Yeah nobody ever publishes articles based on anonymous sources. If you do it's fake news.

Well yeah, it's less credible and potentially carries some risks.

 

[Dude Abides]

Well yeah, it's less credible and potentially carries some risks.

Risks that are perceived to be greater after a well-financed lawsuit in front of a bad judge was able to bankrupt a media company!

Which was the point of the article (not "deifying Gawker," which the article didn't do at all).

 

[KonradLaw]

You can think what Gakwer did was sleazy, but a free press is a free press. Either you stand for a free press or you don't. The encroachment and chilling effect is very, very real even if you refuse to see it.

Do you stand by free press? Because using your criteria it means you should support the existence of revenge port websites or you wouldn't sue if a newspaper accused you or being be a sexual abuser without a shred of evidence, because hey...free press. Or what if a blog posted all your personal info, including social security numbers? Same thing I guess. You either are for a free press or not, right?

 

[Foggy]

Risks that are perceived to be greater after a well-financed lawsuit in front of a bad judge was able to bankrupt a media company!

Which was the point of the article (not "deifying Gawker," which the article didn't do at all).

Those same risks have always been around. The paradigm is the same as it's always been.

 

[Dude Abides]

Those same risks have always been around. The paradigm is the same as it's always been.

Yes it was always possible for some well-heeled goon to finance a lawsuit to take down a media outlet.

Now that it's actually happened the risk is more salient. That's what the author of the piece is saying. But internet message board posters know better than someone in the industry, I guess. Don't they always?

 

[King Tubby]

The exchange in question.



He's obviously joking with the four year old answer guys.

I know he was joking (or at least, I hope so). It was just a really, really, really stupid thing to say in a deposition when the survival of your company is on the line.

 

[Makonero]

I know he was joking (or at least, I hope so). It was just a really, really, really stupid thing to say in a deposition when the survival of your company is on the line.

He hadn't worked at Gawker for awhile when that deposition was taken. Delaurio was an asshole who never should have had a job.

 

[faceless007]

I'm not saying "ban this guy," but people in this thread (and other Gawker threads) have explicitly made the bizarre and disgusting argument that posting sex tapes without consent as just another form of acceptable journalism, and that everybody who disagrees "doesn't believe in a free press."

You are literally wrong about what the poster you quoted is saying and I have not seen anyone here defend the posting of the tape specifically. If you're unable to understand the difference between defending a specific article being published and being worried about the chilling effect that real journalists who work in the industry might experience about their work, then you are over-simplifying the issue in order to construct a straw man.

Another funny thing: hive-minding all of GAF like a singular entity in order to trash it with straw men is also usually bannable.

 

[Dambrosi]

I don't give a shit about Peter Thiel. I will be honest I do not know who he is other than the fact that he was outed by Gawker and bankrolled Hogan's case against them. I don't particularly care who he is. I'm not an American and don't care much for your politics.

But anyway, I stand for a open press but one that is also curtailed to a certain extent by other people's human and legal rights, such as the right to privacy. Those rights should not be trampled on unless it is very clearly in the public interest to do so. I support libel and defamation laws.

I absolutely do not support an 'absolute' freedom of the press that tramples on individual human rights, and I imagine very, very few people do. It's the same way that I don't support an 'absolute' right to free speech. And I absolutely do not support disgusting behaviour such as outing a gay man or publishing a private sex tape. Both of those things should rightly be worthy of damages being awarded to the victim, and worthy of further punitive damages to discourage and prevent any other press from doing the same thing. If that bankrupts a publication, I'll shed no tears for them.

The Gawker decision was a step in the right direction, not the wrong one - whether it had bankrupted them or not. It's just a shame that your legal system means that it took a billionaire to fight them on an even playing field.

All a publication has to do to avoid what happened to Gawker is not do the immoral things that they did and not trample over people's rights to privacy when the public interest is not served one iota by the publication of private information.

That is NOT a high bar to set. It is the correct bar to set. If it ever happens to a publication I liked, they will have deserved it too.

Yes, but that's hard and doesn't get clicks, the press is finished! What a catastrophe!

I couldn't have said this better myself. The bolded, especially. But maybe that's because I'm from the UK and therefore know what a real "gutter press" looks like. Why do you think we had the Leveson enquiry into press abuses and illegal acts, including phone-hacking? There's your "absolute free press" right there. Give them an inch...

 

[excelsiorlef]

You can actually be ok with Gawker not existing anymore while still decrying how it got got.

 

[Mutant]

1.) Gawker didn't initially show the part on the sex tape where Hulk Hogan was saying the n-word until he sued. They were withholding that part because they thought they had leverage with it. Gawker publishing the sex tape has nothing to do with outing a racist.

2.) Gawker has done a ton of awful shit outside of the Hulk Hogan thing.

 

[Mivey]

You can actually be ok with Gawker not existing anymore while still decrying how it got got.

Nah. It's 2017. Nuance is dead.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Yea the gawker hate around here is pretty crazy, they fucked up on outing that gay guy but the hulk hogan thing was a bit more gray imo. The ability for the ultra rich to silence journalists though... That's scary as fuck cause they are the true enemy

How is revenge porn a gray area?

 

[faceless007]

Here's a question: In the wake of Gawker's dismantling, which of these questions do you think editors at publications in the U.S. are asking themselves more than they were before when weighing whether to run certain stories?

1) Does this story serve the public good, meet a basic ethical standard of newsworthiness, or would its publication bring harm to a private citizen who doesn't deserve it?

or

2) Will this story make us the target of well-heeled rich people with armies of lawyers whom we might not have the resources to fight against even if it's clearly in the public interest and we have multiple sources to verify it?

Hint: The answer is in the OP article.

 

[Tripon]

Yes it was always possible for some well-heeled goon to finance a lawsuit to take down a media outlet.

Now that it's actually happened the risk is more salient. That's what the author of the piece is saying. But internet message board posters know better than someone in the industry, I guess. Don't they always?

I suppose the argument would have been that it would have happened eventually if not for the Hogan Sex tape, than another issue such as outing a Conde Nast executive because your "anonymous source" was a literal conspiracy theorist who wanted to damage his brother who worked in the federal government, or showing a video of a woman who was raped without her consent, or trying for years to imply James Franco was a serial gay rapist.

I would also state that only the website portion of Gawker died. Every other parts of the Gawker network sold and survived. That includes deadspin, jalopink, and io9.
If you are saying that that a gossip rag closed or Nick Denton was personally harmed by his company reckless, then I can't be sympathetic about that.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

You are literally wrong about what the poster you quoted is saying and I have not seen anyone here defend the posting of the tape specifically. If you're unable to understand the difference between defending a specific article being published and being worried about the chilling effect that real journalists who work in the industry might experience about their work, then you are over-simplifying the issue in order to construct a straw man.

What am I misinterpreting? The poster explicitly posits that Gawker only ran afoul of oppressive "guidelines" that only favor the rich (which I guess doesn't include Gawker execs here, but whatevs). He's doubled down since then, mind.

If you have an alternate interpretation, maybe you should elaborate instead of just insisting I'm wrong.

Another funny thing: hive-minding all of GAF like a singular entity in order to trash it with straw men is also usually bannable.

Fair enough, I should instead address specific posters when I make these claims. For example, a poster in this thread suggesting that we physically assault Nazis attempting to exercise their right to free speech, because we shouldn't allow such harmful views to fester in public:

You're still misunderstanding the point of the punch (and of the idea of society physically opposing Nazis however possible), which is to try to silence and shame them before they go so far as to commit crimes in the name of white supremacy. Better that they live in fear, impotence, and the certainty that they are shunned universally for their views and therefore are essentially powerless to ever act on them -- as they have for the last 50 years -- than for them to feel in any way emboldened or that they could conceivably hold legitimate political power. Sadly, the rise of Trumpism is starting us down the slope of the latter being the case, which makes it all the more important that we do what we can to restore the former status quo as quickly as possible.

I dunno, I don't think that going to civil court because a bunch of rich guys violated your right to privacy is much worse than beating up people on the street. But hey.

 

[Cocaloch]

Yes it was always possible for some well-heeled goon to finance a lawsuit to take down a media outlet.

Now that it's actually happened the risk is more salient. That's what the author of the piece is saying. But internet message board posters know better than someone in the industry, I guess. Don't they always?

Not to call out you in particular when people throughout the thread are doing it, but it seems like what people actually have an issue with is American Political Economy and the American Justice system. The Free Press thing is incidental if you admit what Gawker did is wrong on any level.

Because essentially anything could follow the bolded.

Sounds like you guys really have a problem with litigation created to cause economic harm and the relationship of money to the legal system. This is commendable because these are real problems, but I fail to see how it affects journalism more than anything else other than journalism being more likely to open one up to litigation, rightfully I might add, than most things.

You can actually be ok with Gawker not existing anymore while still decrying how it got got.

Right, so what I wrote above. The issue then requires reform of American Political Economy and/or the justice system though. Not the relaxation of laws surrounding journalism.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

The newsworthy and defensible story with the Hogan sex tape was his use of the N-word. He is a public figure, and outing his bigotry would be fair game.

However, Gawker's original story had FUCK ALL to do with that aspect. That was their mistake; they made the story about the sex/infidelity, then failed to prove why it was newsworthy in the trial.

 

[Dude Abides]

Not to call out you in particular when people throughout the thread are doing it, but it seems like what people actually have an issue with is American Political-economy and the American Justice system. The Free Press thing is incidental if you admit what Gawker did is wrong on any level.

Because essentially anything could follow the bolded.

Sounds like you guys really have a problem with litigation created to cause economic harm and the relationship of money to the legal system. This is commendable because these are real problems, but I fail to see how it affects journalism more than anything else other than journalism being more likely to open one up to litigation, rightfully I might add, than most things.

You don't see how the threat of SLAPP litigation is a particular problem for media outlets except for the fact that media outlets are more likely to expose themselves to SLAPP litigation?

 

[excelsiorlef]

I do have to point out again that the expectation was that Gawker would win the appeal or have it greatly reduced.... that's why the lawsuit was designed the way it was because the goal was to, through various different ways (that all require very smart very very expensive lawyers), get such a big, and specifically structured, win that Gawker couldn't financially afford to appeal.

And it worked, so now here we are.

 

[Cocaloch]

You don't see how the threat of SLAPP litigation is a particular problem for media outlets except for the fact that media outlets are more likely to expose themselves to SLAPP litigation?

Yes, well kinda you went more specific here. The fact that media outlets are targeted by this is incidental to the root problem. Which is that the legal system is set up in a way that allows for lawsuits where the goal is to cause harm through the suit itself.

I do have to point out again that the expectation was that Gawker would win the appeal or have it greatly reduced.... that's why the lawsuit was designed the way it was because the goal was to, through various different ways (that all require very smart very very expensive lawyers), get such a big, and specifically structured, win that Gawker couldn't financially afford to appeal.

And it worked, so now here we are.

Right, and this derives from a general problem in the American justice system.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

What am I misinterpreting? The poster explicitly posits that Gawker only ran afoul of oppressive "guidelines" that only favor the rich (which I guess doesn't include Gawker execs here, but whatevs). He's doubled down since then, mind.

If you have an alternate interpretation, maybe you should elaborate instead of just insisting I'm wrong.



Fair enough, I should instead address specific posters when I make these claims. For example, a poster in this thread suggesting that we physically assault Nazis attempting to exercise their right to free speech, because we shouldn't allow such harmful views to fester in public:



I dunno, I don't think that going to civil court because a bunch of rich guys violated your right to privacy is much worse than beating up people on the street. But hey.

Dude

 

[AntraxSuicide]

especially a video of a woman getting raped being considered newsworthy despite requests to take it down)

Here's an article that mentions this, for people who didn't know about it.

Gawker was one of the shittiest outlets around, and it absolutely deserved to go down for it. In a perfect world, we'd have federal SLAPP laws to prevent places from being sued into oblivion until all appeals are over with. But in this perfect world, we'd also have laws that put people like Daulerio in jail for responses he gave to people like this woman.

 

[SecretMoblin]

Here's a question: In the wake of Gawker's dismantling, which of these questions do you think editors at publications in the U.S. are asking themselves more than they were before when weighing whether to run certain stories?

1) Does this story serve the public good, meet a basic ethical standard of newsworthiness, or would its publication bring harm to a private citizen who doesn't deserve it?

or

2) Will this story make us the target of well-heeled rich people with armies of lawyers whom we might not have the resources to fight against even if it's clearly in the public interest and we have multiple sources to verify it?

Hint: The answer is in the OP article.

The issue is that there's a disagreement about that very premise; there's no actual evidence that editors are suddenly more antsy about running stories due to the Gawker case, at least any more than they were prior to it. A reporter lamenting how difficult it is to shop a piece can't shop that same piece in a pre-Bollea world and marvel at how awful things have since become. Any reporters who have been working at legitimate media outfits for years understand how difficult it can be to get a thinly-evidenced, off-the-record exposé about a billionaire published in a reputable venue.

If anything, cases like Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair had a far, far greater impact on how modern newsrooms treat stories.

Regardless, even if she's trying to argue your second point in the article, it's not quite an accurate description of her exact situation and the skepticism and wariness on the part of editors/pubs.

 

[Freshmaker]

How fucking hard is it for people to understand that a media company being bankrupted by a third-party-financed lawsuit for publishing true information about a public figure has a chilling effect on other media organizations considering whether to publish damaging information about other public figures?

Very fucking hard, apparently.

The article in questions mentions stuff getting buried well before Gawker existed.

Also doesn't change the fact that Gakwer has been grossly unethical and that's what bit them in the ass.

 

[Dude Abides]

The article in questions mentions stuff getting buried well before Gawker existed.

Also doesn't change the fact that Gakwer has been grossly unethical and that's what bit them in the ass.

Yes and the argument in the article is that stuff is more likely to get buried because publishers are more likely to fear Thiel-style lawsuits.

Also the lawsuit had nothing to do with whatever "grossly unethical" stuff that Gawker did outside posting the Bollea tape. What bit them in the ass was that clowny elected state judge (who had already been reversed once for ignoring the First Amendment) made a dubious ruling, a jury got outraged and issued a ridiculous award, and they didn't have the money to post bond for appeal.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Also the lawsuit had nothing to do with whatever "grossly unethical" stuff that Gawker did outside posting the Bollea tape.

This isn't accurate. The jury in the case also heard about previous behavior like the link I just posted where they posted a video of a potential rape with no celebrity value whatsoever. After being asked to take it down, they told the woman in the video to "not make a big deal" about it and that it would blow over. Then they sicced their legal department on her to dissuade her from suing them.

 

[LordRaptor]

Here's a question: In the wake of Gawker's dismantling, which of these questions do you think editors at publications in the U.S. are asking themselves more than they were before when weighing whether to run certain stories?

1) Does this story serve the public good, meet a basic ethical standard of newsworthiness, or would its publication bring harm to a private citizen who doesn't deserve it?

or

2) Will this story make us the target of well-heeled rich people with armies of lawyers whom we might not have the resources to fight against even if it's clearly in the public interest and we have multiple sources to verify it?

Hint: The answer is in the OP article.

This seems like a false dichotomy, because the actual answer is that those obeying option 1 should have no need to fear option 2.

Gawker coming a cropper by ignoring option 1 entirely, and only fulfilling some of the criteria of option 2 doesn't have an inherent chilling effect on media adhering to the principles of option 1.

I will freely concede that it has a chilling effect on "I have some tasty gossip on someone famous, can I print it and make enough money off of doing so that it is worthwhile even if I am legitimately sued for my actions later on?"

 

[Dude Abides]

This isn't accurate. The jury in the case also heard about previous behavior like the link I just posted where they posted a video of a potential rape with no celebrity value whatsoever. After being asked to take it down, they told the woman in the video to "not make a big deal" about it and that it would blow over. Then they sicced their legal department on her to dissuade her from suing them.

Oh you're right. The dopey judge let the jury hear evidence that had nothing to do with the issues before it. Not sure why we should be comforted by the fact that what was supposed to be a legal proceeding about purported damage to Terry Bollea's reputation and the First Amendment got turned into an absurd morality play about punishing Very Bad People by any means at hand. You can kind of tell who cares more about the former and who the latter.

 

[Brakke]

This isn't accurate. The jury in the case also heard about previous behavior like the link I just posted where they posted a video of a potential rape with no celebrity value whatsoever. After being asked to take it down, they told the woman in the video to "not make a big deal" about it and that it would blow over. Then they sicced their legal department on her to dissuade her from suing them.

I figure that one of the questions Gawker could raise on appeal is “why did the judge admit this irrelevant evidence?”.

e: ah the Dude beat me to it.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Oh you're right. The dopey judge let the jury hear evidence that had nothing to do with the issues before it. Not sure why we should be comforted by the fact that what was supposed to be a legal proceeding about purported damage to Terry Bollea's reputation and the First Amendment got turned into an absurd morality play about punishing Very Bad People by any means at hand. You can kind of tell who cares more about the former and who the latter.

I figure that one of the questions Gawker could raise on appeal is “why did the judge admit this irrelevant evidence?”.

e: ah the Dude beat me to it.

I think the point was to refute Gawker's claim that it didn't post sex tapes without a public interest. Posting a random woman potentially getting raped kinda shows that Gawker would post anybody's sex tape, not just a celebrity.

 

[Foggy]

Yes it was always possible for some well-heeled goon to finance a lawsuit to take down a media outlet.

Now that it's actually happened the risk is more salient. That's what the author of the piece is saying. But internet message board posters know better than someone in the industry, I guess. Don't they always?

He's saying it's more salient? Well knock me over with a feather.

If media outlets are particularly more gunshy now than they were before, then he'll need to do more to convince me of it than complain that no one wanted to pick up his story. I'm all ears.

 

[Dude Abides]

I think the point was to refute Gawker's claim that it didn't post sex tapes without a public interest. Posting a random woman potentially getting raped kinda shows that Gawker would post anybody's sex tape, not just a celebrity.

The question as to whether the Bollea sex tape was newsworthy is an objective one, it doesn't really matter if they posted another tape that was not newsworthy.

He's saying it's more salient? Well knock me over with a feather.

If media outlets are particularly more gunshy now than they were before, then he'll need to do more to convince me of it than complain that no one wanted to pick up his story. I'm all ears.

Hers.

Are you sure you're all ears?

 

[Brakke]

I think the point was to refute Gawker's claim that it didn't post sex tapes without a public interest. Posting a random woman potentially getting raped kinda shows that Gawker would post anybody's sex tape, not just a celebrity.

But this wasn’t a congressional hearing. Litigation is adversarial. The question before the court wasn’t “does Gawker deserve to be a media outlet”. Just “were Gawker protected in posting this story about Hulk, and if not then how much damage did they do they owe him in damages”.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

I think the point was to refute Gawker's claim that it didn't post sex tapes without a public interest. Posting a random woman potentially getting raped kinda shows that Gawker would post anybody's sex tape, not just a celebrity.

And after they responded callously to her, though that was aj daulerio as well as one lawyer and not gawker as a whole, they did take said video down. No one is denying that gawker fucked up sometimes, the argument is that they didn't deserve to be bankrupt in a way that made sure they couldn't appeal. Frankly, I believe gawker filled a necessary role in our media landscape. If you avoided the valleywag section and stuck to their more professional writers you did pretty well. It's like judging the New York Times by the style section. What they do there doesn't invalidate their actual reporting.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

The question as to whether the Bollea sex tape was newsworthy is an objective one, it doesn't really matter if they posted another tape that was not newsworthy.

But this wasn't a congressional hearing. Litigation is adversarial. The question before the court wasn't ”does Gawker deserve to be a media outlet". Just ”were Gawker protected in posting this story about Hulk, and if not then how much damage did they do they owe him in damages".

Part of Gawker's argument is that they wouldn't post something if it wasn't newsworthy. As in, it would go against their character to do so. That clearly wasn't the case.

So when the court asks whether Gawker was protected in posting their story, they argued that it was newsworthy. Partially because they wouldn't post things that weren't newsworthy. Hogan's attorneys argued that Gawker had in fact previously posted something salacious and unnewsworthy, so as to establish a pattern.

edit:

And after they responded callously to her, though that was aj daulerio as well as one lawyer and not gawker as a whole, they did take said video down. No one is denying that gawker fucked up sometimes, the argument is that they didn't deserve to be bankrupt in a way that made sure they couldn't appeal. Frankly, I believe gawker filled a necessary role in our media landscape. If you avoided the valleywag section and stuck to their more professional writers you did pretty well. It's like judging the New York Times by the style section. What they do there doesn't invalidate their actual reporting.

The first sentence here is a meaningless distinction. In that instance, there would be no consequences for literally any organization ever. "It wasn't us, just our members." That's what frats argue when pledges get hazed and shit.

And I already said we need SLAPP laws federally to prevent this from happening. No harm in letting the system play out before payment is required.

And I disagree. Any site that would do that to a potential rape victim is trash and should be burned to the ground by any moral person. Preferably by watching their traffic decline to zero, but Gawker fans didn't have principles.

 

[Cat Party]

Part of Gawker's argument is that they wouldn't post something if it wasn't newsworthy. As in, it would go against their character to do so. That clearly wasn't the case.

So when the court asks whether Gawker was protected in posting their story, they argued that it was newsworthy. Partially because they wouldn't post things that weren't newsworthy. Hogan's attorneys argued that Gawker had in fact previously posted something salacious and unnewsworthy, so as to establish a pattern.

None of that is relevant from an evidentiary perspective, and it should not have been admitted.

 

[Brakke]

Part of Gawker's argument is that they wouldn't post something if it wasn't newsworthy.

Is this true? When did this happen. Why would Gawker argue this. Are you misinterpreting the plaintiff’s questioning of Gawker as the relevant principles Gawker was shielding itself with? The whole posting-videos-of-children thing didn’t come “from” Gawker, it came from questions posed by plaintiff.

 

[Foggy]

Hers.

Are you sure you're all ears?

It'd be nice to have a conversation, but that's ok. Cute retort though.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

The first sentence here is a meaningless distinction. In that instance, there would be no consequences for literally any organization ever. "It wasn't us, just our members." That's what frats argue when pledges get hazed and shit.

And I already said we need SLAPP laws federally to prevent this from happening. No harm in letting the system play out before payment is required.

And I disagree. Any site that would do that to a potential rape victim is trash and should be burned to the ground by any moral person. Preferably by watching their traffic decline to zero, but Gawker fans didn't have principles.

I don't think member vs organization is as black and white as you are making it out to be. If the heads of gawker knew that was happening and didn't care to stop it then I'd agree but something changed daulerios mind about that video and I'd bet it came from the top cause he's a pretty shitty person and I don't see him changing his mind on his own.

Maybe this analogy is a sensitive topic here and if so a mod can edit it out...

A former mod of this forum was arrested for child pornography, and he has in the past posted less than negative feelings on such topics. Does than mean evillore is responsible for that mods views and everything he wrote in his capacity as a mod? Where is personal responsibility? Should NeoGAF be shut down because of the actions of one mod? (The answer is no obviously)

In journalism it's tricky, gawker had a very firm stance against the business side affecting the editorial side, to prevent say a business guy quashing a negative story about an advertiser and maybe that led them to give too much freedom to editors(of which I can only remember the one, daulerio, having these kinds of issues regularly). The thiel backed lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for any journalist these days who is willing to buck trends and go after the rich and powerful and until federal slapp laws are implemented we'll continue to see even well sourced and researched articles shut down in the name of avoiding expensive lawsuits no matter how spurious.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Is this true? When did this happen. Why would Gawker argue this. Are you misinterpreting the plaintiff's questioning of Gawker as the relevant principles Gawker was shielding itself with? The whole posting-videos-of-children thing didn't come ”from" Gawker, it came from questions posed by plaintiff.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-of-a-4-year-old/

So if you look at this post, there's a ton of stuff there (that should probably be in a separate article!). This was before the link I posted up thread. Daulerio was already on the stand and had already been asked numerous questions about his tactics, intent, and the public interest in his stories.

As far as I can find right now, I'm not sure how the entire topic came up around Daulerio (the earliest article about his testimony seems to start with the 4 year old comment, but I'm sure he didn't open with that ).

I don't think member vs organization is as black and white as you are making it out to be. If the heads of gawker knew that was happening and didn't care to stop it then I'd agree but something changed daulerios mind about that video and I'd bet it came from the top cause he's a pretty shitty person and I don't see him changing his mind on his own.

Maybe this analogy is a sensitive topic here and if so a mod can edit it out...

A former mod of this forum was arrested for child pornography, and he has in the past posted less than negative feelings on such topics. Does than mean evillore is responsible for that mods views and everything he wrote in his capacity as a mod? Where is personal responsibility? Should NeoGAF be shut down because of the actions of one mod? (The answer is no obviously)

In journalism it's tricky, gawker had a very firm stance against the business side affecting the editorial side, to prevent say a business guy quashing a negative story about an advertiser and maybe that led them to give too much freedom to editors(of which I can only remember the one, daulerio, having these kinds of issues regularly). The thiel backed lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for any journalist these days who is willing to buck trends and go after the rich and powerful and until federal slapp laws are implemented we'll continue to see even well sourced and researched articles shut down in the name of avoiding expensive lawsuits no matter how spurious.

So say Daulerio is a mod here, and he posts links to a possible rape video. If Evilore doesn't immediately perma-ban him and remove the link, then I'd never use the site again and I'd petition advertisers to stay away from here (I'm confident that wouldn't be the case).

Daulerio posted that video in 2010. He didn't leave the company (and indeed, was promoted!) until 2013. Gawker clearly had no issue with him working there. They even sicced an attorney on that woman to coerce her.

Look, again, SLAPP legislation is necessary. But to argue that Gawker was anything more than a vile cesspit that exhibited the worst traits of the Internet is just plain inaccurate. Their many victims should feel safer knowing that their harasser isn't still making millions peddling their grief.

 

[Dude Abides]

It'd be nice to have a conversation, but that's ok. Cute retort though.

Not much conversation to be had with someone who breezily dismisses any information they don't like because reasons.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

It'd be nice to have a conversation, but that's ok. Cute retort though.

You misgendered the author of this article in question, it stands to reason that if you couldn't even get that simple fact straight you may not have read the pertinent information either.

 

[Rktk]

How fucking hard is it for people to understand that a media company being bankrupted by a third-party-financed lawsuit for publishing true information about a public figure has a chilling effect on other media organizations considering whether to publish damaging information about other public figures?

Very fucking hard, apparently.

Apparently it's hard to understand both at the same time.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Again the key thing about the Gawker effect is the way Thiel and his lawyers orchestrated it all so that Gawker would be bankrupted before they could appeal... an appeal again that likely would have been favourable to them.

And that worked... that's the fear... because again you can think they were morally wrong (and they were basically) but the legality is something completely different and that's where the effect comes in because the process doesn't really give a shit if you're actually guilty or legally culpable it just cares about getting you sued in such a way that you're completely fucked and unable to appeal.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Again the key thing about the Gawker effect is the way Thiel and his lawyers orchestrated it all so that Gawker would be bankrupted before they could appeal... an appeal again that likely would have been favourable to them.

And that worked... that's the fear... because again you can think they were morally wrong (and they were basically) but the legality is something completely different and that's where the effect comes in because the process doesn't really give a shit if you're actually guilty or legally culpable it just cares about getting you sued in such a way that you're completely fucked and unable to appeal.

For like the fourth time, I think we need federal SLAPP laws.

 

[Foggy]

Not much conversation to be had with someone who breezily dismisses any information they don't like because reasons.

Wanting something more provocative from her to make me rethink the current landscape isn't breezy or unreasonable. It's tough to reconcile that considering the NYT taking down Harvey Weinstein but being too meek about an Amazon exec that Amazon clearly had no qualms firing. Maybe I'm being dense but contrary to what you said I can have a conversation about this. Or you can continue to be weirdly smug about all this.

You misgendered the author of this article in question, it stands to reason that if you couldn't even get that simple fact straight you may not have read the pertinent information either.

I read the article. I know it was written by a woman. I've been wrong about innumerable things in my life, but I'm not exactly broken up about a typo. If that's impossible for someone to get past, so be it.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

Here's a question: In the wake of Gawker's dismantling, which of these questions do you think editors at publications in the U.S. are asking themselves more than they were before when weighing whether to run certain stories?

1) Does this story serve the public good, meet a basic ethical standard of newsworthiness, or would its publication bring harm to a private citizen who doesn't deserve it?

or

2) Will this story make us the target of well-heeled rich people with armies of lawyers whom we might not have the resources to fight against even if it's clearly in the public interest and we have multiple sources to verify it?

Hint: The answer is in the OP article.

I get where you're coming from, but the problem is that this isn't an "all of a sudden" thing. Newspaper companies/Journalists aren't just going to roll with someone's story unless there are hard solid facts to back themselves up, because the threat of a lawsuit is always there. That's why I don't understand why people seem to be attributing this effect to Gawker, as journalists have always had to deal with the possibility of someone gunning for them and losing their jobs/costing their company big time.

Furthermore, there's a reason why you don't see Weinstein (or any other connections like Ben Affleck, after being exposed for their transgressions etc.) trying to fight back and sue NYT and NYP for publishing the allegations. All it comes down to is making sure you do your proper job as a journalist and covering all your bases to where people can't do a damn thing about what you've published. Granted, that doesn't mean it will stop other people (a billionaire tried to do the same to Mother Jones a while ago and failed miserably because a judge found ”all of the statements at issue are non-actionable truth or substantial truth"), but as long as you do your job properly, you shouldn't have to worry about lawsuits. Basically there are certain things journalists and companies are protected from by the law, but the onus is on them to make sure that they are protected. That's where Gawker failed with their hypocritical and often lackadaisical justification for certain things being newsworthy but not others.

Additionally, in regards to your second question in the wake of Gawker, this is precisely why people debate others who defend the company. Gawker's argument for newsworthiness came down to the position that celebrities have less privacy than regular citizens so anything they do = newsworthy, so that justified posting the sex tape (which is already a flimsy premise as it is, because you're asking a jury to pick between the 1st and 14th amendments). Never mind the problems around lack of consent and not knowing that he was recorded. Funny enough, Gawker comes off as a hypocrite too considering they found the rape of a woman newsworthy and told her that the embarrassment would pass.

Here's an article that mentions this, for people who didn't know about it.

Gawker was one of the shittiest outlets around, and it absolutely deserved to go down for it. In a perfect world, we'd have federal SLAPP laws to prevent places from being sued into oblivion until all appeals are over with. But in this perfect world, we'd also have laws that put people like Daulerio in jail for responses he gave to people like this woman.

This is why I'm completely okay with their death as a company. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have legal shenanigans where you rely on exhausting funds in order to render the other side useless to fight back, but their track record spoke for itself.

 

[ronaldthump]

but wasn't gawker destroyed for the hulk hogan story?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-settlement.html

But that fight ultimately proved too difficult to sustain.

”After four years of litigation funded by a billionaire with a grudge going back even further, a settlement has been reached," Mr. Denton said in a blog post on Wednesday.

”All-out legal war with Thiel would have cost too much, and hurt too many people, and there was no end in sight," Mr. Denton added. ”Gawker's nemesis was not going away."

Mr. Denton did not respond to a request for further comment.

In May, Mr. Thiel, a founder of PayPal and one of the earliest investors in Facebook, acknowledged in an interview with The New York Times that he was providing financial support for Mr. Bollea's lawsuit, saying he was financing cases against Gawker because it published articles that ”ruined people's lives for no reason." Mr. Thiel was outed as gay by Valleywag, one of Gawker's now-defunct blogs, nearly a decade ago.

and gawker made some enemies, I just read up on it again - they had outted a billionaire who now had a vendetta lol. trash site anyhow.