Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker: Court orders $115M in damages

[bmags]

Not to the tune of 10 million on a 50/50 case. That's going to take some work by a Plaintiff to find a firm to take a case like that.

 

 

 

The CPD largely does a good job but they also kill innocent black kids!

 

 

 

They may, they may not.

That $10 million is likely inflated by this actually going to trial, and a law firm that knew all of its hours billed would be paid. Another plaintiff would almost cetainly settle for less, but restitution is there (unless they don't have a case which many libel cases don't).

 

Your second point is idiotic. Nothing gawker has done punished poor people as much as Thiels funding of james o'keefe's ACORN sting, a malicious piece of trash that hurt actual poor people that he manipulated. If only poor people had a billionaire fighitng for them to protect them against Thiel.

 

No, they may.

 

Your argument is essentially we should have an unchecked billionaire class and not a free media. I disagree.

[Jenksismyhero]

That $10 million is likely inflated by this actually going to trial, and a law firm that knew all of its hours billed would be paid. Another plaintiff would almost cetainly settle for less, but restitution is there (unless they don't have a case which many libel cases don't).

 

Your second point is idiotic. Nothing gawker has done punished poor people as much as Thiels funding of james o'keefe's ACORN sting, a malicious piece of trash that hurt actual poor people that he manipulated. If only poor people had a billionaire fighitng for them to protect them against Thiel.

 

No, they may.

 

Your argument is essentially we should have an unchecked billionaire class and not a free media. I disagree.

 

No, my argument is this sort of activity is ripe for abuse but it's not a certainty. There may be positives to rich third parties financing lawsuits against large corporations that individuals may not be able to afford by themselves. Here is one of them. A s***ty online blog that breached someone's privacy for page clicks got a significant judgment entered against them.

 

You're looking at nothing but the assumed "certain" negatives, whereas i'm looking at the potential positives.

[bmags]

No, my argument is this sort of activity is ripe for abuse but it's not a certainty. There may be positives to rich third parties financing lawsuits against large corporations that individuals may not be able to afford by themselves. Here is one of them. A s***ty online blog that breached someone's privacy for page clicks got a significant judgment entered against them.

 

You're looking at nothing but the assumed "certain" negatives, whereas i'm looking at the potential positives.

 

Okay, I get what you are saying. I think you are overrating his actions in the Hogan case and underrating how this is a persistent action to fund any plaintiffs willing to threaten action against them. It's easy to support this because Gawker may have been wrong in the Hogan case, but the implications of the power of these parties is scary especially for media.

[Texsox]

I'm with Jenks on this one. Everyone who gives away money has something they want in return. If he was financing a suit against an evil chemical company whose business practices resulted in poor people dying, we'd erect a statue. Take on polluting loggers who decimate a salmon fishery, hold a parade, take on an entertaining web site of dubious ethics that we all enjoy reading? Whoa . . .

 

I trust our legal system and the checks and balances that have been put in place.

 

I would also be interested if anyone has proposed legislation making a full disclosure of the financial arrangements of plaintiffs and defendants a requirement of civil suits.

[southsider2k5]

That $10 million is likely inflated by this actually going to trial, and a law firm that knew all of its hours billed would be paid. Another plaintiff would almost cetainly settle for less, but restitution is there (unless they don't have a case which many libel cases don't).

 

Your second point is idiotic. Nothing gawker has done punished poor people as much as Thiels funding of james o'keefe's ACORN sting, a malicious piece of trash that hurt actual poor people that he manipulated. If only poor people had a billionaire fighitng for them to protect them against Thiel.

 

No, they may.

 

Your argument is essentially we should have an unchecked billionaire class and not a free media. I disagree.

 

If you take the opposite position to its extreme, it would be argued that this would enable an unchecked media, which is what libel/slander law is supposed to protect against.

[bmags]

If you take the opposite position to its extreme, it would be argued that this would enable an unchecked media, which is what libel/slander law is supposed to protect against.

 

Yeah so I never stated we need to abolish libel laws, so no, that's not the opposite of any position here.

 

I'm questioning the ethics of allowing some of the very powerful people in this world to use the legal system to financially punish media outlets they don't like. Peter Thiel was not libeled by Gawker. Hogan may have been, and this donald trump company was not. But he is making sure every law suit get staken to Gawker just so they have to pay for dealing with it.

 

According to Gawker, the items youv'e heard about are justt one of mulitple he has lobbied against Gawker:

http://gawker.com/now-peter-thiels-lawyer-...on-t-1781918385

 

Do you support all of these actions against Gawker? Do you support when Trump just threatens to sue any publication regardless of meriti just to punish them financially?

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Yeah so I never stated we need to abolish libel laws, so no, that's not the opposite of any position here.

 

I'm questioning the ethics of allowing some of the very powerful people in this world to use the legal system to financially punish media outlets they don't like. Peter Thiel was not libeled by Gawker. Hogan may have been, and this donald trump company was not. But he is making sure every law suit get staken to Gawker just so they have to pay for dealing with it.

 

According to Gawker, the items youv'e heard about are justt one of mulitple he has lobbied against Gawker:

http://gawker.com/now-peter-thiels-lawyer-...on-t-1781918385

 

Do you support all of these actions against Gawker? Do you support when Trump just threatens to sue any publication regardless of meriti just to punish them financially?

 

I mean if we are just talking about money here, what about situations where the media giant is libeling someone without money? Do they get away with it, because the person being libeled can't afford to take on the media giant in court?

[Texsox]

Yeah so I never stated we need to abolish libel laws, so no, that's not the opposite of any position here.

 

I'm questioning the ethics of allowing some of the very powerful people in this world to use the legal system to financially punish media outlets they don't like. Peter Thiel was not libeled by Gawker. Hogan may have been, and this donald trump company was not. But he is making sure every law suit get staken to Gawker just so they have to pay for dealing with it.

 

According to Gawker, the items youv'e heard about are justt one of mulitple he has lobbied against Gawker:

http://gawker.com/now-peter-thiels-lawyer-...on-t-1781918385

 

Do you support all of these actions against Gawker? Do you support when Trump just threatens to sue any publication regardless of meriti just to punish them financially?

 

Gawker has has access to the courts and could counter sue him as well if he continued to bring frivolous suits against them. EVentually he would lose a lot of money unless Gawker kept doing wrong.

 

BUt you have a great point here that needs to be considered.

[bmags]

I mean if we are just talking about money here, what about situations where the media giant is libeling someone without money? Do they get away with it, because the person being libeled can't afford to take on the media giant in court?

 

That was case with Thiel's funded puppet James O'Keefe. They are at least marginalized and shamed. Which is what I'm trying to do by voicing my opposition to supporting Thiel just because you agree that Gawker was immoral against Hogan.

 

 

[bmags]

Gawker has has access to the courts and could counter sue him as well if he continued to bring frivolous suits against them. EVentually he would lose a lot of money unless Gawker kept doing wrong.

 

BUt you have a great point here that needs to be considered.

 

They can, it would cost them money though and I don't know what grounds they have. According to that law firm, they basically just know any suits brought against gawker will have the bills paid. What are you suing him for?

[illinilaw08]

Gawker has has access to the courts and could counter sue him as well if he continued to bring frivolous suits against them. EVentually he would lose a lot of money unless Gawker kept doing wrong.

 

BUt you have a great point here that needs to be considered.

 

Well, but part of the problem is that there's no disclosure requirement. Therefore, Gawker would have no idea that there's was a connecting thread behind all these lawsuits...

[illinilaw08]

I mean if we are just talking about money here, what about situations where the media giant is libeling someone without money? Do they get away with it, because the person being libeled can't afford to take on the media giant in court?

 

I'm not sure if you can bring a libel suit on a contingency basis (I think Jenks probably has a lot more experience in that area), but in general access to the court system should be much more open. A media giant like Gawker (or any other party with means in a lawsuit) shouldn't be able to win litigation by making the litigation long and unduly expensive.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not sure if you can bring a libel suit on a contingency basis (I think Jenks probably has a lot more experience in that area), but in general access to the court system should be much more open. A media giant like Gawker (or any other party with means in a lawsuit) shouldn't be able to win litigation by making the litigation long and unduly expensive.

 

You can, but those cases are difficult to prove and it's not easy to find an attorney/law firm that is willing to finance a risky case.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, but part of the problem is that there's no disclosure requirement. Therefore, Gawker would have no idea that there's was a connecting thread behind all these lawsuits...

 

I'm still not sure what a disclosure requirement would do. Let's say we have that and the court and attorneys are provided that information, so what? What are they going to do with that information? Every court considers every claim filed one that has merit unless it is totally frivolous on its face. Do we really want judges using past filings as a factor in determining frivolous claims? I've seen that done with prisoner filings before, but that's when the prisoner files a new complaint against everyone in government on a weekly basis. You're never going to have that extreme with a billionaire trying to bleed a company dry through litigation.

 

And again, what if this person is filing two "frivolous" cases for every five legitimate ones. You can't really say with any certainty the next one will be frivolous. You still have to decide the case on the merits. So nothing changes.

[illinilaw08]

I'm still not sure what a disclosure requirement would do. Let's say we have that and the court and attorneys are provided that information, so what? What are they going to do with that information? Every court considers every claim filed one that has merit unless it is totally frivolous on its face. Do we really want judges using past filings as a factor in determining frivolous claims? I've seen that done with prisoner filings before, but that's when the prisoner files a new complaint against everyone in government on a weekly basis. You're never going to have that extreme with a billionaire trying to bleed a company dry through litigation.

 

And again, what if this person is filing two "frivolous" cases for every five legitimate ones. You can't really say with any certainty the next one will be frivolous. You still have to decide the case on the merits. So nothing changes.

 

It's more about who is the client. If a third party finances litigation, there should be waivers signed acknowledging that they aren't the client, and they have no say in directing the strategy of the case. It's relevant as to whether the plaintiff has waived attorney-client privilege in discovery. You are right - it's not relevant in front of a judge or jury at trail (unless, as you mention above, there's an extreme patter on frivolous filings). But you know as well as I do that litigation isn't file the case then go to trial.

 

IF someone like Thiel was pulling strings behind dozens of lawsuits against Gawker, and directing the plaintiff or their lawyers to pursue riskier strategies in an effort to provide the maximum hurt to Gawker, that might not be relevant to put in front of a judge at trial, but it's extremely relevant to whether Gawker can bring counterclaims against Thiel. And it's relevant to what Gawker is entitled to in discovery.