[–] ArsCortica 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I call bullshit. Gawker has a long, long history ruining people's lives for the single purpose of creating clickbait. That it has not been ruined by earlier lawsuits is the only surprising thing about this. As a matter of fact, this probably would have happened if Gawker itself would not have had a very well-paid legal department, so the entire rhetoric of rich people having the upper hand in such legal cases is completely hollow.


[–] guinness2 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

A crucial concern, of course, is that the verdict sends the disturbing message that powerful people with deep pockets can, if they choose, shut down criticism not just in particular instances but permanently.

Not it doesn't!

It sends a message to news agencies not to repeatedly commit so many illegal acts of slander that you are bankrupted by the compensation payouts.

The only disturbing message this sends is that shitpost news agencies should only slander reputations who can't afford to take 'em to court.


[–] doginventer [S] 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

Unfortunately the really big companies can afford the lawyers and compensation costs, as well as influencing the political will to take action or not.

I'm no fan of Gawker but I think the author here makes a valid point about the potential for a chilling effect on smaller scale investigative publications.


[–] guinness2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I agree that rich companies can afford the best lawyers and can also tie-up smaller companies in court for decades and effectively strangle them to death, however I reject the author using the Hogan vs Gawker legal cases as a basis for that argument because that's a logical fallacy of false equivalence. In this case, Gawker committed a string of crimes and were bankrupted by their court ordered compensation payouts.


[–] Spaceballs-1 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The obvious implication for entrepreneurial news organisations is that they must do their utmost to adhere to both ethical responsibilities and legal requirements – not just because it’s the right thing to do but also because their own future depends on it.

It's clear that they are willing to ignore a "code of ethics" if there is some financial gain available, then what better way then to assure that "Journalists/bloggers" don't fabricate their stories than to make them liable?


[–] brother_tempus 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Gawker was never a watchdog journalistic outlet

If was a pro-socialist progpaganda machine that did hit-jobs on people who were not accepted by the left on the side