• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Gawker Media files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection

Status
Not open for further replies.
It blows my mind that anyone could think that a rich asshole being able to put a media company out of business for posting articles he didn't like is good or acceptable. And yet people are celebrating this.

I hope Gawker prevails and that Theil and Hogan eat shit, not because I approve of all Gawker's publishing decisions, but because what those two are doing is fucked up.

Keep in mind that chapter 11 is used to restructure debt, rather than liquidate. So Gawker isn't going anywhere just yet.
Was anything illegal done?
 

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
I find it hard to celebrate this. Gawker has disgusted me on more than one occasion, but for a millionaire and a billionaire to be able to team up and use the legal system to (edit: potentially) run it out of business? Surely there are negative implications there. Particularly when said billionaire happens to be someone with very little respect for the media, democracy, etc. in the first place.

Not to mention Gawker hasn't been entirely bad. There are a lot of great people working under that banner.

The billionaire got outed by Gawker media which was not very cool. The Millionaire could got his personal tape leaked on the internet. Asked them to take it down before legal action. They brought it on themselves. The legal system was correct and it wasn't used to their advantage.
 
You'd rather have private citizens outed than lose your articles?

Except that's not the matter to which the lawsuit pertained.

I find it hard to celebrate this. Gawker has disgusted me on more than one occasion, but for a millionaire and a billionaire to be able to team up and use the legal system to (edit: potentially) run it out of business? Surely there are negative implications there. Particularly when said billionaire happens to be someone with very little respect for the media, democracy, etc. in the first place.

Not to mention Gawker hasn't been entirely bad. There are a lot of great people working under that banner.

Hulk Hogan's not a millionaire, Hulk Hogan's broke.
 
I mean, the whole point of that lawsuit was to get a judgement that would drive Gawker out of business

Hogan never expected to actually get paid that

They would have never been put position to be put out of business if they hadn't illegally posted a video of Hulk Hogan having sex without his permission and then refused to take it down when he asked.
 

McDougles

Member
It blows my mind that anyone could think that a rich asshole being able to put a media company out of business for posting articles he didn't like is good or acceptable.

It blows my mind that anyone could think that a rich asshole being able to have his media company publicly out non-public-facing executives of rival companies, defy court orders to remove the video of Hogan in question, or publicly state the line of posting sex tapes is drawn at four years old is good or acceptable.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I find it hard to celebrate this. Gawker has disgusted me on more than one occasion, but for a millionaire and a billionaire to be able to team up and use the legal system to (edit: potentially) run it out of business? Surely there are negative implications there. Particularly when said billionaire happens to be someone with very little respect for the media, democracy, etc. in the first place.

Not to mention Gawker hasn't been entirely bad. There are a lot of great people working under that banner.

Because if you aren't publishing sex tapes and hacked materials, you probably wouldn't lose a lawsuit like this?

Reputable publications aren't being taken out left and right by irate billionaires, so this isn't really a slippery slope argument.
 

Faddy

Banned
This seems like a tactic to not have to pay Hogan before an appeal is heard. If Gawker loses the appeal they will sell and screw Hogan and if they lose the company won't be sold.

The floating of Ziff to buy the company is so flagrant that it undoubtedly a ploy to ensure the court doesn't reject the protection filing on the grounds that there is no intent to restructure the company. They are certainly not worthless, if the company was sold in whole, with the lawsuit liability remaining with the current company they would still be in the black by over $200m from their own valuation last year. Denton is clearly trying to diminish the value of his business to get bankruptcy protection.
 

Bookoo

Member
From my finances illiterate perspective, it sounds like Gawker will eventually rise from the ashes of its current bankruptcy?

I think chap 11 is where they need to retructure to get money or something. 50 cent did the same thing after he lost that lawsuit.
 

vinnygambini

Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
IMPORTANT: Gawker ain't closing shop, they are seeking a re-organization under bankruptcy protection (think MGM).
 

Kinyou

Member
I find it hard to celebrate this. Gawker has disgusted me on more than one occasion, but for a millionaire and a billionaire to be able to team up and use the legal system to (edit: potentially) run it out of business? Surely there are negative implications there. Particularly when said billionaire happens to be someone with very little respect for the media, democracy, etc. in the first place.

Not to mention Gawker hasn't been entirely bad. There are a lot of great people working under that banner.
Wouldn't Gawker be fine if they had just taken down the video after they were asked to? People might not like millionaires teaming up on an outlet but Gawker still brought this on themselves.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
It's still really scary that they can be.
Sure if they go completely crazy and start outing closeted gay people and posting sex tapes in which the celebrity participants are unknowingly filmed.

The point is that no reputable organization would do that.
 

spons

Gold Member
Not gonna miss garbage sites like Jezebel. Can't imagine anyone enjoying articles like "10 Songs To Be Circumcised To", whatever the fuck that's supposed to be. Satire?
 

Struct09

Member
I find it hard to celebrate this. Gawker has disgusted me on more than one occasion, but for a millionaire and a billionaire to be able to team up and use the legal system to (edit: potentially) run it out of business? Surely there are negative implications there. Particularly when said billionaire happens to be someone with very little respect for the media, democracy, etc. in the first place.

Not to mention Gawker hasn't been entirely bad. There are a lot of great people working under that banner.

I would agree with you in most cases, but here Gawker made some really boneheaded moves when it came to the Hulk Hogan tapes. They had their chance to avoid this but doubled down on their bad decisions.
 

Sephzilla

Member
Best leg drop Hogan ever delivered.

I can't think of a single Gawker site that I don't think is trash. That includes Kotaku.
 

Cat Party

Member
I honestly don't think many people in here know who Peter Thiel is and what he stands for. This isn't about a stupid sex tape.
 
Because if you aren't publishing sex tapes and hacked materials, you probably wouldn't lose a lawsuit like this?

Reputable publications aren't being taken out left and right by irate billionaires, so this isn't really a slippery slope argument.

Riiight, this is where I fall. I mean, I feel like VICE exists in a similar area of the journalism ecosystem to Gawker, and they've never had any bother.

Outing Thiel, the Terry Bollea sex tape... these all felt like utterly self-destructive ventures. The kind of thing no other publication (outside perhaps of British tabloids) has had the audacity to do.
 

The Real Abed

Perma-Junior
The only one I worry about is Patrick. I know he'll land on his feet if Kotaku disappears. I miss him at Giant Bomb though. I've been watching through their old Mail Bags. It's so weird to see him there again.
 

Kinyou

Member
I honestly don't think many people in here know who Peter Thiel is and what he stands for. This isn't about a stupid sex tape.
Pretty sure the trial that led to gawkers downfall was about the sextape. Also, even if Peter Thiel is a bad person, his gripe with gawker for outing him seems justified.
 

Ty4on

Member
Well if they all start behaving like Gawker, they deserve to be.

Sure if they go completely crazy and start outing closeted gay people and posting sex tapes in which the celebrity participants are unknowingly filmed.

The point is that no reputable organization would do that.
Nobody is choosing whom to sue but the billionaires that can afford it. I don't want to trust them to only sue "bad" outlets and not those that reveal ethics violations, bad labor practices, corruption, etc.
 

Kinyou

Member
Nobody is choosing whom to sue but the billionaires that can afford it. I don't want to trust them to only sue "bad" outlets and not those that reveal ethics violations, bad labor practices, corruption, etc.
People aren't trusting the billionaires, they trust the justice system. Gawker legitimately did some bad stuff.
 

stufte

Member
Nobody is choosing whom to sue but the billionaires that can afford it. I don't want to trust them to only sue "bad" outlets and not those that reveal ethics violations, bad labor practices, corruption, etc.

??? Do you really think that if Gawker had done nothing wrong that the suit would have been successful? It's not like they just choose Gawker out of a hat, Gawker wronged them in a very specific way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom