Colon crucified.jpg

>>30059
here, of course.

What a glorious day

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/01/8561057/gawker-media-had-67-million-profit-45-million-revenue-2014

>Gawker Media made $6.7 million of profit on $45 million of net revenue in 2014
>it's open-market valuation estimated about $250 million

$115M are a very big dent in something that produces at most $10M per year.
Burn it to the ground.

Justice has been served, brother

Could still be more; as I believe Punitive Damages still have to be rewarded.

Also; Florida law states that to lodge an appeal, they must post bond equal to the settlement reward, to a maximum of 50 million. So *just to appeal* the verdict, they'll need to pony up 50 mil.

They're done.

>>30087

That isn't all either. $115 million are just the compensatory damages.

They are going for punitive damages too.

>>30059
God is not dead.

>>30091

Aren't they in debt a large sum to begin with?

So gawker loses and we all win

>>30059
Hulkmania is stronk!

>>30059
This is glorious. Eatin' a burger right now, feels American.

Wait, is the hate for Gawker Media almost unanimous on 4chan? Every time I see it mentioned was in a bad light, because it usually came up in GG stuff, or the seldom clickbait that was terrible enough to gather attention. But I always expected some people here to like Kotaku, or Lifehacker.

Are those a silent majority, or do we all hate all things Gawker?

>>30135
Gawker is associated with those asshole shitposters who never stop making shitty threads about shitty controversies that everyone hates.

>>30135
>people here to like Kotaku
What the hell are you on, brother?

>>30135
>>I always expected some people here to like Kotaku

Are you retarded?

>>30137
>>30139
I don't give a flying fuck about vidya. Is it that bad? Or is the general left-leaning thing? At first sight Kotaku looks like shitty links I'd find on reddit, and given that half this site apparently browses reddit, maybe I'm not that far off
I'm very out of touch with the dramas, I just know I never enjoy reading it, and that at least a sizeable portion of the writers are shit

>>30140
>half this site apparently browses reddit
If you don't count the big boards, I guarantee that that is not true.

>>30140
>>I don't give a flying fuck about vidya. Is it that bad?
Yes, you idiot. All of their gaming coverage is idiotic rumor-mongering and click-baiting, or it's general left-wing bullshittery only vaguely related to videogames in the first place.

>>At first sight Kotaku looks like shitty links I'd find on reddit, and given that half this site apparently browses reddit,
This may or may not be true, but I can assure you that every last single redditor that comes here to shitpost is a part of the cancer that is slowly killing this chan.

I agree that Gawker is shit, but what did they do that every /b/tard who ever posted a fappening pic didn't do? Should we really be celebrating this decision?

In the case of the Fappening, it was the hack who violates people's privacy, not 4chan or any poster. In this case it was whoever made the film in secret, not Gawker.

Contain your distaste for the defendant and consider the legal implications. A jury, after all, would find a 4chan user highly distasteful, but that's not a crime.

>>30160
It's because Gawker condemned the fappening leak whilst they themselves had the leaked video of Hulk fucking.

It's just funny you know.

>>30140
Some people hate Kotaku JUST because they're left leaning, but as someone center left myself, I can confirm that Kotaku is total shit.

I mean, this is a website that said an app that's supposed to help teach women new mastrobation techniques was offensive because, I'm not shitting you, "not all women have vaginas".

Jezebel, one of Gawker's blogs, went on a crusade against the fappening, all while Hogan's sex tape was still being hosted on Gawker.

These are the worst fucking internet "news" clickbait bloggers out there this side of buzzfeed.

>>30160
>what did they do that every /b/tard who ever posted a fappening pic didn't do
Made money off it.

That said, I agree with you to the limited extent of giving a shit about this gossip/lawsuit/whatever that I participate in. Freedom of the press is rather important. even if the press is disgusting, their story is bottom-barrel trash, and the injured party has a large fanbase. I don't know the details, but I sure hope the basis for the ruling wasn't “People shouldn't be embarrassed by reporters”.

>>30140
Even reddit hates them. Even numales don't want their video games taken away.

>>30160
Those celebrities took those photos of their own free will. The Hulkster was filmed against his knowledge, for starters.

>sit at home when pjotr rings
>gawker is kill
>YES

>>30167
That is a really stupid argument. Saying that you shouldn't take nude pics in case someone steals them is like saying you shouldn't have sex in case someone secretly films you. After all, you can't be secretly filmed having sex if you don't have sex, right?

Both stealing private documents and secretly filming people are clearly privacy violations. Putting something that someone gave you in a public place, however, is completely different. It's not a private document if somebody is handing it out.

>>30160
Jerking off =/= exploiting someone with illegaly obtained video for money. I really hope people defending Gawker are baiting.

>>30177
well for starters yoy dont take a nude pic unless you want people to see your skank ass, so bitching that people are looking at them is pretty rich
If you were filmed against your will then obviously you arent being a a hipocritical slut and are clearly more of a victim

Duh

Now if only someone would sue Breitbart out of existence, then the world would be a better. more informed place.

>>30140
They have shittily written articles and often try and get away with writing about bullshit that isn't video games. Go check right now, I guarantee you there will be something unrelated to video games within the first few article.

>>30198
Nevermind, I just did it for you.
http://kotaku.com/that-time-marvel-comics-had-an-awful-sex-demon-who-want-1765777053

Seriously, what the fuck?

>>30117
>God is not dead.
He's surely alive
He's living on the inside
Roaring like a lion

>>30155
>Yes, you idiot.
thanks for the info, but I just admitted I wouldn't know any better about vidya journalism

>>30142
>If you don't count the big boards
It was a figure of speech. But if I'm talking about demographics, of course I'm counting the big boards, that account for 90+% of the traffic. As >>30155 said, the cancer is widespread

>>30160
But didn't 4chan ban the fappening in the end? Gawker endorsed the sex tape for publicity and profit, and then acted all entitled about it
Also, most of us are just glad they took harm, regardless of morality.

But if you really want to dig into it, I would have prefered the fappening never happened, both for demographic and moral reasons. I'd rather keep people's privacy than give teenagers more fap material

>>30165
it's gonna be a little bit different than that. It will be appealed, and actual judges will have a chance to judge the merits of Gawker's 1st amendment claim.

>>30160
that's why most of these cases are settled in an appellate court, as this one will likely be. Getting excited right now is a bit preemptive.

>>30160
Ultimately, 4chan banned the fappening. That's the difference. And that's actually why moot did it, not because "LOLOLOLOL CUCK CUCK CUCK" like the /b/tards said. It's because he didn't want to get sued by JLaw.
I do agree that the users who posted the pictures or who bitched about them being banned are hypocrites for attacking Gawker. But I'm not one of those users, so fuck Gawker (who is also a hypocrite, because they cried about misogyny when the Fappening happened)

>>30163
But... now a lot of people on 4chan are doing the same

>>30140
>>30135
>>30164
After the Cards Against Humanity creator was accused of rape, he defended himself and said he was innocent.
A Kotaku writer then bitched about how instead of defending himself he should have talked about how rape is bad. Because even if he was being falsely accused, it was more important to use his position to talk about rape

Koraku is definitely in the same boat as Jezebel

>>30177
>victim blaming

>>30258
>It will be appealed
It'll still cost 50 million. And then they'll lose again.
Did you hear about them saying that they'd post any celebrity sex tape, stopping only at, get this, age 4?
They have no chance.

>>30160
>I agree that Gawker is shit, but what did they do that every /b/tard who ever posted a fappening pic didn't do?
>/b/tards are a earning a profit from their shit posting and call themselves a company with "journalistic merit"
wow.

>>30300
>age 4
Dan Schneider better make sure his casting couch sex tapes are secure.

>>30300
If they appeal, they're going to get completely fucked destroyed because they got a court order to take the tape down, then posted an article saying "we got a court order to take the tape down, but no, we're not going to". They have no chance.

>>30258
They will also have to judge the right to privacy.

Taping in your home without your consent is about the highest form of privacy one can expect. If it is ruled that the freedom of speech for porn trumps privacy there, then there is hardly any privacy left.

The media loves to sensationalize anything that threatens them and I do not blame them (self interest) but the precedence is stacked against them.

In Florida, it has been upheld that even in public spaces recording audio without consent nor knowledge is illegal. That is a far lower bar then private taping in the home.

Gawker is still fucked.

>>30483

This is mostly true, but I think one of the issues for appeal is that Gawker wanted to provide evidence that Hogan DID consent to taping, or at least that he was aware of it, but that the judge improperly disallowed this evidence. If the appeals court decides that the trial judge should have allowed in this evidence, it could be reversible error.

Overall, I actually think that Gawker has a decent chance on appeal, if not winning then significantly reducing the financial award. The question is more whether Gawker can survive long enough to get through the appeals process.

>>30495
Not sure how true it is, but I've heard you have to be able to post bond before you can appeal in accordance to Florida law.

Even if the bond is a fraction of the full damages, it will deal a significant dent to Gawker since their operating income is so low.

>>30495
I still think that whole issue about the knowledge of the tape is a wash. The woman has disposition saying she was not aware.
https://youtu.be/AZxRoT0NMZI?t=40s

But even so, consenting to be taped and agreeing to have it be published are two very different matters. The consent is also more moot because the trial was only against gawker and not anyone else. Whether or not he agreed to be taped in the first place, he never agreed to have it published. As soon as he realized it was without his consent he frequently and clearly asked for it to be taken down and even the courts agreed with that matter. Of course gawker did not. So if they really want to get into the weeds of consent, they will really not be helping with their case.

>>30501

Yes, that's Gawker's big problem, the bond requirement. The judge doesn't have to require the full $50 million maximum, though, so it's going to depend a lot on what she orders.

The $115 million (plus yet-to-be-determined punitive damages) will almost certainly be reduced on appeal, even if Gawker loses on the merits, but whether they even get that far will depend on the bond decision.

>>30506
I hear that got a billionaire playboy to buy them out so they could keep funds going.

However, with their small revenue stream, they had to give up a LOT of control to him. No billionaire would absorb a fee of at10 years of profit without a sizable chunk of influence.

>>30504

These are good points, but it's the sort of thing that jury arguably should have been able to consider. You might be correct, or a jury could believe that consenting to filming put him on notice of possible public distribution. If an appeals court thinks that the issue was relevant and even possibly could have swayed the jury's decision, they'll have to order a new trial.

>>30508
In criminal law I would agree, but I am less versed in the realm of civil.

Would they do a whole new trial or would they just adjust the damages amount right then and there. Or do they de facto reduce it by asking for a new trial and then both parties settle. Also if they do settle, are the punitive damages still help for grabs due to defying court orders?

>My case law knowledge for civil cases is awful

>>30512

I think if the evidence was such that it could reasonably have changed the jury's verdict, then the whole trial has to be redone. Simply adjusting damages doesn't require a whole new trial, but disallowing arguably key evidence would be reversible error.

Any settlement would account for punitive damages, and would end the civil matter entirely. Additional punishment for defying the court order would be a matter of contempt of court that would be litigated separately.

>>30517
I heard if precedence was followed the ballpack figure of the punitive damages would be around 80 million. So a range of 180-200 million I would imagine if no reductions were to occur.

Even if gawker were to settle for 1/4th of that it would still be a decade's worth of profit down the drain.

It is not looking good for them one way or another.

I'm totally on Hogan's side here, Gawker can kick the bucket for all I care, but the fact that the tape was with "his friend's wife" made me lose some respect for him. That's just not cool, you don't sleep with someone's wife, especially if there is friendship involved.

Anyone else remember how /pol/ managed to deep six a lot of gawkers advertising revenue back during the whole gamergate fiasco?

The shit just keeps piling up on their heads and I love it. They brought it on themselves.

>>30583
His friend paid him to fuck his wife. So he was very much behind his wife getting slammed by the Hulkster.

>>30595
In that case my loss of respect goes entirely to that dude.

>>30595
And in the transcripts, she makes it obvious she knows she's being filmed. Her husband says that having the tape is good enough, but they'd be able to blackmail him with putting what he said about the people he knew (including racial slurs) online and letting everyone have at it (which they did). Then she says that you'd mostly see her in pain because the sex hurt.

I really do hope this finishes Gawker.

Once they're gone, just Salon, Mother Jones, Dailykos, Alternet, HuffPo, Think Progress and /qa/ to go...

>>30262
>Koraku is definitely in the same boat as Jezebel
Yeah, of course they are, since they're both owned by gawker media.

>>30597
IF YOU DON'T WANT THE HULKSTER TO SNAP INTO YOUR WIFE LIKE A SLIM JIM, YOU'RE NOT A REAL AMERICAN, BROTHER

Gawker Media always throws around rape accusations, then uploads Hogan's sex tape without his consent.

This whole thing is beautiful, I hope this ruins them.

>>30676
>Gawker Media always throws around rape accusations, then gets mad at the Fappening uploading female celebrities' sexts, then uploads Hogan's sex tape without his consent.
Fixed.

THAT HULK HOGAN GUY IS GOING OVER BROTHER!

Fucking get a job at mcdonalds all you liberal cuckolds at gawker, your career is fucking over

>>30408
Dan "Gonna Need A Drip Pan For That Pussy Cider" Schneider

>>30135
I'm liberal enough to give /pol/ fits and I still despise Gawker. Clickbaity outrage media helps no one.

Gawker btfo.

>>30059
/r9k/ AND /pol/

It was a glorious day

Punitive Damages have been awarded today.

>Total compensation for the Hulkster: 140.1 Million.

Trial today also defined pre-trial Gawker's value at 83 million.

Of the 25.1 million over the 115 million:
>15 million from Gawker
>10 million from Gawker CEO (Nick Denton)
>100,000 from Gawker Editor-In-Chief (AJ Daulerio)

>115 million dollaridoos

Must have been a damn good sex tape

i dont see how they really have any leg to stand on when they stated under oath that they would willingly host child pornography publicly.

Their moral compass is so far from true id be looking for an inquest into making sure he isnt up to something on the side.. involving minors. He's probably a pedo.

In a statement after this week's verdict, Gawker’s General Counsel, Heather Dietrick, said, "Soon after Hulk Hogan brought his original lawsuits in 2012, three state appeals court judges and a federal judge repeatedly ruled that Gawker's post was newsworthy under the First Amendment.

Does this change anything, if at all?

It's up to $140 million now.

>>33832
Good job

>>33832
Is that your Wii code?!