Kickstarter Campaign to Buy Jaloppo?

"PatBateman" (PatBateman) 05/26/2016 at 10:32 • Filed to: Hulk/Thiel Tag Team

2

55

Thoughts?

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:35

2

I’ll do it for tree fiddy...

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:37

1

Free them from their overlords!

Dru > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:38

2

WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO WHEN HULKAMANIA RUNS WILD ON YOU, BROTHER!!!!

But seriously, that rich dude who is supposed to have bankrolled Hulk’s lawsuit because he had an axe to grind against Gawker worries me for the integrity of the first amendment. Yeah Gawker is largely terrible, but where are we as a society where money can silence a voice, even one with which it is hard to sympathize?

As far as the sale itself, I am hopeful everything will come out alright on the other side. There seems to be enough revenue generating potential within the empire to justify its continued existence.

PatBateman > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 05/26/2016 at 10:40

3

Must be a US Citizen and not the Lochness Monster to buy it.

Future next gen S2000 owner > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:40

1

Rules are dumb.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:43

8

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Dru 05/26/2016 at 10:44

1

To be fair, Gawker lost It’s rights when it violates the rights of those on the other side.

PanchoVilleneuve ST > Dru 05/26/2016 at 10:44

5

I’m pretty sure the first amendment doesn’t protect you if you’re refusing to take down footage of a person having sex that was taken without the person knowing.

PS9 > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:46

7

On one hand, that sounds reasonable given the verdict against them. On the other, we’re a few years full of appeals away from actual consequences for Gawker, so doing that now makes no sense. I also don’t like the whole ‘sources say’ BS news organizations try to pull. It’s a crappy way of appearing to substantiate something salacious without actually doing so. Clicks/Views now, proof later (or never).

“Sources say Gamecat’s divorce from DasWauto was caused by an affair with PatBateman. Parties involved declined to comment.”

“Sources say renowned drug kingpin Arch Duke Maxyenko exploring options for exiting lucrative weed business.”

“Those close to Yamahog say she denies being a human shapped sentient combination of yamaha parts and hedgehogs; Report”

TheRealBicycleBuck > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:46

2

We don’t need much - just a copy of the Kinja source code, a copy of the database so we aren’t starting over, and a new place to host it.

EL_ULY > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:47

1

Put me down for $7

Honeybunchesofgoats > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:47

1

I have this jar of coins in my office. It was here when I moved in, but recently I decided to stop throwing change into my desk drawer and instead throw it into the jar. There’s still some change in the desk drawer, because sometimes I forget that I now have the jar. I’m willing to offer the money in the jar, and the jar—but not the change in the drawer—for Jalopnik. I will take Deadspin and Jezebel is that sweetens the deal for Denton.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Dru 05/26/2016 at 10:48

7

I don’t think this is a 1st Amendment issue because even the 1st Amendment has it’s limits. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater and you can’t distribute a video of a private citizen when they believed they had a certain expectation to privacy and they weren’t committing a crime. Same reason why posting revenge porn is becoming a crime, this video isn’t in the public interest. If it were a video of a congressman having sex with a lobbyist while they discuss bribes for new laws he’s going to try pass, then sure it’s totally protected by the 1st Amendment.

This video is of a dude banging another guys wife while that guys films it, the only thing of public interest here is public rubbernecking at this train wreck of a situation and I’m sorry but even celebrities have a right to a certain level of privacy. This video is more in lines of The Fappening, it’s a gross invasion of privacy and Gawker fucked up by picking this hill to die on.

Dru > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 05/26/2016 at 10:48

0

IMO they lost their rights when they thought anyone would WANT to see that. I guess I am just looking at the situation in the cosmic sense.

PatBateman > Dru 05/26/2016 at 10:49

3

Thiel isn’t their downfall; Hogan’s sex tape is. Thiel just bankrolled the lawsuit against the company that outed him for being gay.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > PS9 05/26/2016 at 10:50

1

Well said and well done examples

I was reading them going “don’t be an example...don’t be an example...PHEW that was close”

Dru > PanchoVilleneuve ST 05/26/2016 at 10:50

0

Right, and I’m not arguing that, but do you not think that at some point, some rich faceless benefactor could effectively shut down a media outlet because they didn’t like what they published? Gawker is pretty handily in the wrong here, but what kind of precedent does this lawsuit set?

Stapleface > TheRealBicycleBuck 05/26/2016 at 10:50

2

I want the original kinja source code. So I can throw it in a damn woodchipper.

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:50

4

We pay in cat .gifs?

Dru > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 05/26/2016 at 10:52

1

Good point.

Dru > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 10:53

1

Right. I think I forgot that they flat out refused to take it down for some months. As someone else put it, not sure why this was the hill upon which they chose to die.

PatBateman > PS9 05/26/2016 at 10:56

1

“Exploring options” is a very vague term. It basically means that Denton probably met with some lawyers to discuss possible remedies to the situation. But considering the possibility that some GM employees might be disgruntled, leaks and sources are most likely plentiful.

PanchoVilleneuve ST > Dru 05/26/2016 at 10:56

1

Because Nick Denton has no shame. Remember when Gawker excitedly outed some rando businessman only to learn later it was part of a blackmail scheme?

PatBateman > EL_ULY 05/26/2016 at 10:56

1

Noted. $70,000.

haveacarortwoorthree2 > Dru 05/26/2016 at 10:58

1

Assuming the jury’s verdict is upheld on appeal (which is not likely, IMHO), one person’s $ didn’t silence a voice at all. The voice would have been silenced for violating a law that applies equally to everyone in a fashion that was not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Honeybunchesofgoats > Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif 05/26/2016 at 10:59

0

I think you're overvaluing Gawker Media, frankly.

Dru > haveacarortwoorthree2 05/26/2016 at 10:59

0

Good point. I forgot about the refusal to take it down.

Conan > PanchoVilleneuve ST 05/26/2016 at 11:00

1

That’s the one they should be closing over.

Sir Halffast > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 05/26/2016 at 11:01

1

This is the accurate answer. They didn’t “lose their rights.” That’s not a thing. A right that you can “lose” is not actually a right, it’s a privilege. Like the “right” to vote. It’s simply that this situation is not covered by the rights that Gawker has. This is not the 1st Amendment at all, as this has nothing to do with the state or federal government limiting Gawker’s speech. It IS a libel/slander issue, and an invasion of privacy issue. The real freedom of the press concern is not whether there should be damages awarded (there should), but the size of the award. It is a legitimate legal question whether $140 million in “damages” is too high, so as to provide a chilling effect that prevents other outlets from printing salacious-but-relevant stories for fear of liability. Self-censorship is something that we do not want in the press, at least when it comes to items that are actually newsworthy.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Dru 05/26/2016 at 11:02

0

Every once and a while something shakes loose and falls out of my head.

Shane MacGowan's Teeth > Dru 05/26/2016 at 11:03

0

It doesn’t set any precedent, this is something that’s been around forever. In fact, many landmark civil rights and “David vs. Goliath” cases have had independent backers, or been given free high level representation (effectively the same).

It’s roughly the same as any lawsuit- can be used maliciously or nobly, and no real way to regulate one away without regulating the other. Let’s all remember, Gawker always had vastly more resources than Hogan himself, and is also being backed by a Russian oligarch. They aren’t innocent in this.

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > Honeybunchesofgoats 05/26/2016 at 11:04

0

oh?

Dru > Shane MacGowan's Teeth 05/26/2016 at 11:04

0

“being back by a Russian oligarch”

go on...

TheRealBicycleBuck > Stapleface 05/26/2016 at 11:05

0

Now, now. Keep yourself under control. Of the article/commenting systems I’ve seen, Kinja isn’t that bad. If they open-source it or sell it, we could fix the problems.

Dru > haveacarortwoorthree2 05/26/2016 at 11:05

0

Also, when are you going to post more about the Jag? We need this for science.

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 05/26/2016 at 11:05

1

I ain’t givin’ you no tree fiddy, ya go’damn Lochness Monsta!

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif 05/26/2016 at 11:06

0

“Can we do that ?!”

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Sir Halffast 05/26/2016 at 11:07

0

I agree that the amount is too high and that will probably be reduced on appeals (hopefully). I’d like to think that there is enough distinction in this case to limit the fear of liability. Basically “don’t release a sex tape of someone if they’re not committing a crime or ethics violation of their office".

Shane MacGowan's Teeth > Dru 05/26/2016 at 11:10

0

http://jimromenesko.com/2016/01/20/gaw…

Note:

“The funding will strengthen GMG’s financial reserves as we prepare for trial this March in Hulk Hogan’s $100 million invasion of privacy lawsuit, in which we are defending our right to report truthfully on the conduct of public figures.”

That company is owned by this guy, Viktor Vekselberg:

Dru > Shane MacGowan's Teeth 05/26/2016 at 11:13

0

Wow. As if I didn't dislike them enough.

Sir Halffast > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 05/26/2016 at 11:13

0

You would hope. But if you’ve ever read a judicial opinion, the thinnest non-precedental case can still be used as justification. Okay, sex in a private house is one thing. But it’s easy to expand that to simple embarrassment, and it doesn’t even require a slippery slope to get there. Failure to reduce such a large award could very well lead to retaliatory suits against any outlet that embarrasses a semi-public figure for non-newsworthy reasons. Such suits don’t even need to be successful to have an effect, in fact they don’t even need to make it to court. Many media outlets lack the financial wherewithal to defend such suits in court, and through appeals. Even if they decide to settle, settlements come at a cost, and you can only afford to do it so many times. Easier to self-censor and avoid the risk.

qbeezy > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 11:16

0

I got tree fidy

Ash78, voting early and often > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 11:24

3

Their only real flaw was not bankrolling the Ultimate Warrior’s comeback in Vince McMahon's "Summer Slander 27: OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT" That would have been pretty entertaining, actually.

jariten1781 > Dru 05/26/2016 at 11:26

0

The corollary is that, without appropriate funding ‘rich-faceless’ media conglomerates would have insulation from libelous/invasion of privacy actions due to the fact they could out-fund most individuals that they wronged. There are legal foundations and groups like the ACLU that have funded actions that a wronged individual would not have been capable of doing. It’s not a new thing, and it’s rarely controversial.

The measuring stick for corruption (I do not consider this a 1st amendment issue) would be if the third party funding affected the merits of the case. I’ve seen not a lick to suggest that in this situation, the funding was merely a vehicle. As long as the cases have merit the complainants should be able to avail themselves of whatever tools they have available to receive compensation and punishments for the wrongs that have been wrought on them.

Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 11:27

0

Pay them in starbrusts and beer..

Dru > jariten1781 05/26/2016 at 11:27

0

Good point. Also just found out GMG is being funded/bankrolled/whateveryouwanttocallit by a Russian oligarch, so there's that.

Wheelerguy > PS9 05/26/2016 at 11:30

0

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Yeah, but you’d say them shit ‘cuz it cums outta ur ass, sunny. The truth’s out there, you just went back to your room and stitched your eyes so’s you never see no nothing because the gubment told ya to.

PS9 > Wheelerguy 05/26/2016 at 11:41

1

What?

Wheelerguy > PS9 05/26/2016 at 11:49

0

...
Nothing.

Here. Drive this.

*throws keys to you*
*walks away whistling*

PatBateman > Ash78, voting early and often 05/26/2016 at 12:27

0

WOOOOOO!!!

-Ric “No Sex Tape Yet” Flair

CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist) > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 12:33

0

In a way the Hulkmania case is a case testing the waters of the 1st amendment. I feel uneasy about the future of Gawker and kinja as a whole..

PatBateman > CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist) 05/26/2016 at 12:56

0

Gawker reduced themselves to a gossip rag with these stories. They only out gay people that disagree with them politically, they complete blackmail attempts for clicks against non-newsworthy individuals, they ignore court orders to remove videos, they post the names and addresses of possible gun owners in NYC so the people can be shamed, etc.

This isn't about the first amendment; this is about decency on a blog that has always proclaimed that they ARE NOT journalists.

CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist) > PatBateman 05/26/2016 at 12:57

1

Essentially, they’ve reduced themselves to shit.

PatBateman > CCC (formerly CyclistCarCoexist) 05/26/2016 at 13:07

0

Yes. But I’ve heard rumors that they’re “20% nicer” now, so they have that going for them, which is nice.

DrJohannVegas > Ash78, voting early and often 05/31/2016 at 15:48

0

How the hell did I miss this golden comment until today?