You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
6

[–] 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.

3
-2

[–] 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.

0
3

[–] 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.