Does lawsuit against Gawker create playbook for punishing press?

[LuckyTheDog]

Word last week that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled wrestler Hulk Hogan’s invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against Gawker added a wrinkle to a case already featuring colorful characters and a US$140 million jury verdict.

At a sensational and personal level, the story highlights the animus between PayPal co-founder Thiel and Gawker founder Nick Denton stemming from a 2007 gossip item that publicly outed Thiel as gay. Thiel sees Denton as “a singularly terrible bully” who invades privacy for profit. In turn, Denton sympathetically portrays Gawker, in an open letter to Thiel, as “a small New York media company” being bullied by a man with “a net worth of more than $2 billion.”

But regardless of whether it’s framed as a personal battle between Thiel and Denton or a larger one between protecting privacy and a free press, the revelation raises important questions about third-party financed litigation targeting U.S. news media outlets that are safeguarded under the First Amendment.

MORE HERE: http://yonside.com/does-lawsuit-against-gawker-create-playbook-for-punishing-press/

[onehandle]

1. Not a fan of any of the players here, but I hope Gawker and all its sites, go down the tubes. nt

[LuckyTheDog]

8. I don't.

I value having diverse voices out there. Sure Gawker can cross the line sometimes. They also can do some really interesting work.

[TipTok]

2. What would the legislation look like that would 'fix' this?

[LuckyTheDog]

3. The article writer suggests mandatory transparency (nt)

[TipTok]

6. To what end?

Dear members of the jury...

You shouldn't find in favor of the defense because rich guy X agrees with him and agreed to assist in his legal defense?

I just can imagine how that would play legally. Either the law was broken or it wasn't.

[LuckyTheDog]

7. No.

But at the very least, the jury should have all the available facts.

As things stand now, billionaires have the ability to covertly damage -- and possibly destroy -- media outlets they don't like by saddling them with legal fees that they cannot afford. Even if the news outlets win every case, a flurry of spiteful lawsuits could bankrupt them.

I, for one, don't like seeing billionaires exercise power like that with impunity. At the very least, they should have to publicly own up to what they are doing.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

4. This is a valid question...

The law would be passed by a Senate where Republicans are a majority. All they need to destroy the rest of freedoms is a Trump-card.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

9. Maliciously invading the private lives of individuals isn't journalism

even loathsome ones,

[LuckyTheDog]

10. But there is a broader issue here

If they can do it to Gawker, is ProPublica next?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

11. Although I acknowledge that some inclined planes can be very well lubricated

We're dealing with some awfully specific circumstances here that aren't likely to be duplicated regularly.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. The First Amendment

has nothing to do with private lawsuits. Losing a lawsuit because you (generic you, not you personally) published something in violation of slander or libel laws isn't an infringement on First Amendment rights.