You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.

0
2

[–] doginventer [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yes, I think you have a good point there, especially as the facts being bought to light in this case didn't seem to serve any real public interest - beyond gawking.