Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

Private Equity Firm Great Hill Partners Gizmodo Sucks 3.0
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=100473		 Page 1 of 51
Author:  Brick [ Wed May 25, 2016 7:05 am ]
Post subject:  Private Equity Firm Great Hill Partners Gizmodo Sucks 3.0
I guess the original one is lost forever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=0
:lol:
Author:  Sir Loin Of Beef [ Wed May 25, 2016 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
That's what happens when the wealthy hate something - they pour shitloads of money into lawsuits they know the small publications can't afford, thus bringing them down.
Author:  Brick [ Wed May 25, 2016 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Sir Loin Of Beef wrote:
That's what happens when the wealthy hate something - they pour shitloads of money into lawsuits they know the small publications can't afford, thus bringing them down.
In this case, when they are outing someone as gay who doesn't want to be outed, I'll allow it.
Author:  Sir Loin Of Beef [ Wed May 25, 2016 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
I agree on that point because it was a duck move.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Wed May 25, 2016 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Sir Loin Of Beef wrote:
I agree on that point because it was a duck move.


Quack.
Author:  newper [ Wed May 25, 2016 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Image
Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Wed May 25, 2016 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Image
Author:  Jaw Breaker [ Wed May 25, 2016 9:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
"There is nothing illegal about funding such legal cases; there is an entire industry known as litigation finance that often helps invest in and financially support lawyers working on contingency in small and large cases. It is not common for a lawsuit to be backed by a third party that may have other motives."

The author states this as if there are no moral issues, when in fact it's been illegal and/or frowned upon for most of history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html
Author:  Brick [ Thu May 26, 2016 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Trying to make themselves the victims....

http://gawker.com/this-is-why-billionaire-peter-thiel-wants-to-end-gawker-1778734026
Author:  Sir Loin Of Beef [ Thu May 26, 2016 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
I have to defend Gawker here as I think you all are missing the point:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-huge-deal

Quote:
We don't have to go any further than Donald Trump to know that the incredibly rich often use frivolous litigation to intimidate critics and bludgeon enemies. Mother Jones had a lawsuit like this, clearly intended to bleed them dry through endless legal expenses. They won, though at a steep cost. But when bully plutocrats do so in their own name there is at least a self-correcting dynamic at work.
Author:  Brick [ Thu May 26, 2016 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Sir Loin Of Beef wrote:
I have to defend Gawker here as I think you all are missing the point:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-huge-deal

Quote:
We don't have to go any further than Donald Trump to know that the incredibly rich often use frivolous litigation to intimidate critics and bludgeon enemies. Mother Jones had a lawsuit like this, clearly intended to bleed them dry through endless legal expenses. They won, though at a steep cost. But when bully plutocrats do so in their own name there is at least a self-correcting dynamic at work.
This isn't a frivolous lawsuit though against Gawker.

In fact, Gawker lost and by a considerable margin, and will probably lose again.

If a billionaire wants to fund legitimate lawsuits against corporations then I think that is just fine.
Author:  Brick [ Thu May 26, 2016 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Also, before we throw a pity party for Gawker, don't forget they are also a corporation worth millions of dollars that set themselves up in a very sleazy way who has ruined the lives of multiple people all in the name of page views.
Author:  IMU [ Thu May 26, 2016 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Society needs Gawker and the like.
Author:  Jbi11s [ Thu May 26, 2016 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Given Gawker's reputation and history of click bait journalism it's very hard to ever view them as a victim. This is similar to a bully crying for getting bullied.
Author:  Sir Loin Of Beef [ Thu May 26, 2016 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Sir Loin Of Beef wrote:
I have to defend Gawker here as I think you all are missing the point:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-huge-deal

Quote:
We don't have to go any further than Donald Trump to know that the incredibly rich often use frivolous litigation to intimidate critics and bludgeon enemies. Mother Jones had a lawsuit like this, clearly intended to bleed them dry through endless legal expenses. They won, though at a steep cost. But when bully plutocrats do so in their own name there is at least a self-correcting dynamic at work.
This isn't a frivolous lawsuit though against Gawker.

In fact, Gawker lost and by a considerable margin, and will probably lose again.

If a billionaire wants to fund legitimate lawsuits against corporations then I think that is just fine.


No, what he is doing used to be illegal:

http://qz.com/692312/billionaire-peter- ... e-illegal/

How many more suits has he bankrolled against Gawker? How far will he go until the site is silenced?
Author:  Brick [ Thu May 26, 2016 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Sir Loin Of Beef wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Sir Loin Of Beef wrote:
I have to defend Gawker here as I think you all are missing the point:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-huge-deal

Quote:
We don't have to go any further than Donald Trump to know that the incredibly rich often use frivolous litigation to intimidate critics and bludgeon enemies. Mother Jones had a lawsuit like this, clearly intended to bleed them dry through endless legal expenses. They won, though at a steep cost. But when bully plutocrats do so in their own name there is at least a self-correcting dynamic at work.
This isn't a frivolous lawsuit though against Gawker.

In fact, Gawker lost and by a considerable margin, and will probably lose again.

If a billionaire wants to fund legitimate lawsuits against corporations then I think that is just fine.


No, what he is doing used to be illegal:

http://qz.com/692312/billionaire-peter- ... e-illegal/

How many more suits has he bankrolled against Gawker? How far will he go until the site is silenced?
That doesn't address my point, and as you said, it isn't illegal now.

What is the problem with funding lawsuits that are not frivolous? Gawker is a multimillion dollar corporation headquarted offshot who was hit with, and lost, a non-frivolous lawsuit. If gawker didn't want to get sued maybe they shouldn't have done the thing that got them a judgement against them.
Author:  America [ Thu May 26, 2016 5:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Gawker has spent years undermining the spirit of the first amendment with their bullshit witch hunts (what Biddle did to that South African PR chick...) and now they're getting sunk by their own bullshit.

Thiel is not going after a legitimate news outlet. Gawker may have been one of those a long time ago, but by their own admission the flagship is doing a (really boring) Daily Show imitation that serves no purpose in our democracy. Let it burn.
Author:  Hussra [ Thu May 26, 2016 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
I think the chick was from the UK, and flying to South Africa? I don't think she needed anyone's help
to ruin her career in....

PR?

Really?

And her twitter feed was full of similarly edifying nuggets of wizdumb:

Image
Author:  Hussra [ Thu May 26, 2016 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
re: financing the lawsuits.

if the lawsuit were frivolous, the defendant could ask the judge to award costs and some jurisdictions allow for further actions/penalties for filing frivolous claims.

gawker's problem here is the claim not only had merit, but they lost.

no idea how they think it matters who paid for the other side's lawyers.

It's not like Gawker had to resort to legal aid in defending the lawsuit. Both sides had 1st rate lawyers and gawker lost. that's how the system should work. doesn't always. but this is not even close to a case of lopsided representation dictating the outcome of a case.
Author:  Sir Loin Of Beef [ Thu May 26, 2016 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
My point is people with money and power are using but to shut down a voice and that is bullshit and wrong.
Author:  Curious Hair [ Thu May 26, 2016 6:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
America wrote:
Gawker has spent years undermining the spirit of the first amendment with their bullshit witch hunts



A thousand Gawker commenters reply to you with that stupid "THEY'RE SHOWING YOU THE DOOR" stick-figure comic.
Author:  America [ Thu May 26, 2016 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Hussra wrote:
I think the chick was from the UK, and flying to South Africa? I don't think she needed anyone's help
to ruin her career in....

PR?

Really?

And her twitter feed was full of similarly edifying nuggets of wizdumb:

Image

She posted that sarcastically. It was only meant for her friends to see it, Biddle just took a random-ass regular person and ruined them for no reason.

Curious Hair wrote:
A thousand Gawker commenters reply to you with that stupid "THEY'RE SHOWING YOU THE DOOR" stick-figure comic.

Or the infuriating Diego Montoya "That word, it doesn't mean what you think it means" meme.
Author:  Sir Loin Of Beef [ Thu May 26, 2016 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Um.. with a tweet like that she deserved what she got.
Author:  conns7901 [ Thu May 26, 2016 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Sir Loin Of Beef wrote:
Um.. with a tweet like that she deserved what she got.


So does Gawker for the Hogan Video.
Author:  America [ Thu May 26, 2016 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Sir Loin Of Beef wrote:
Um.. with a tweet like that she deserved what she got.

She posted it as a joke to her 170 followers.
Author:  Hussra [ Thu May 26, 2016 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
I don't think any one person's retweet of her tweet did her in. it was a group effort by the twitter and even more so, iirc, reddit hive mind. and, again, she worked in PR. prolly spent her work days explaining to executives that they need to be careful what they tweet. and then she goes tweeting away her career.

i agree with what you're saying about the internet making road-kill of people's lives for sport being not a good thing. but i think hers is a bad case to argue that point.
Author:  Dave In Champaign [ Thu May 26, 2016 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
TIL a billionaire bankrolling the destruction of a media outlet out of spite is Actually Good
Author:  pittmike [ Fri May 27, 2016 6:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Dave In Champaign wrote:
TIL a billionaire bankrolling the destruction of a media outlet out of spite is Actually Good


Don't you think the "media" we are talking about that invades or rather attacks the privacy of any celebrity deserves a little push back? Maybe they can stand to step back some?
Author:  Brick [ Fri May 27, 2016 6:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Dave In Champaign wrote:
TIL a billionaire bankrolling the destruction of a media outlet out of spite is Actually Good
As long as the lawsuit isn't frivolous who cares what the motivation is?

Gawker has more money than most and better lawyers than most and they use that to their advantage. If a guy with more money and better lawyers wants to take them on to get them when they are in the wrong then what is the big deal?

We have whole organizations designed to fighting for people without being directly involved. Just because it is a billionaire instead of a non profit doesn't change the ultimate lesson that if you do something wrong, and the courts find that you did something wrong, you deserve what is coming to you.
Author:  pittmike [ Fri May 27, 2016 7:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gawker Media Sucks 2.0
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Dave In Champaign wrote:
TIL a billionaire bankrolling the destruction of a media outlet out of spite is Actually Good
As long as the lawsuit isn't frivolous who cares what the motivation is?

Gawker has more money than most and better lawyers than most and they use that to their advantage. If a guy with more money and better lawyers wants to take them on to get them when they are in the wrong then what is the big deal?

We have whole organizations designed to fighting for people without being directly involved. Just because it is a billionaire instead of a non profit doesn't change the ultimate lesson that if you do something wrong, and the courts find that you did something wrong, you deserve what is coming to you.



We are in full agreement on this Brick. Now lets find a way to argue. :wink: :lol:
Page 1 of 51 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/