Gamergate III: Rise of the Machines

[AnOminous]

I love that for over a year, Gamergate slowly chipped away at Gawker, weakening it bit by bit (and the occasional six/seven figure deficit loss when they fucking had to admit shit was going south)...

Remember how Nick Denton was joking about how Sam Biddle had cost them millions. Bet Nicky boy wishes they had some of that money Sam Biddle pissed away acting like a repulsive sociopath in their name.

By the love of the god emperor of mankind, Gamerghazi is throwing Gawker under the bus

Bless their black little hearts.

 

[Jaimas]

Mystery 8chan benefactor strikes again:

Spoiler: I love this

Meanwhile, Gawker remains defiant:


And the opposition is distressed:

Spoiler: NeoGaf Rages

Fuckers have more salt than that game I bought for PS4 this week.

 

[I-chi]

Mystery 8chan benefactor strikes again:

Spoiler: I love this

Meanwhile, Gawker remains defiant:


And the opposition is distressed:

Spoiler: NeoGaf Rages

Fuckers have more salt than that game I bought for PS4 this week.

 

[AnOminous]

I might have missed it in the Hulk Hogan celebration, but oral arguments were heard today in Eron Gjoni's case, as reported by Eugene Volokh on his blog.

Today, the Massachusetts Appeals Court will be hearing arguments in Van Valkerburg v. Gjoni. That’s the case — related to the “Gamergate” controversy — in which Chelsea Van Valkenburg (her name was misspelled in the court caption), now named Zoë Quinn, got an order requiring her ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni

not to post any further information about the [plaintiff] or her personal life on line or to encourage “hate mobs.”

I think this order violates the First Amendment, and I filed a friend-of-the-court brief so arguing, on behalf of Prof. Aaron Caplan (author of “Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders,” 64 Hastings L.J. 781 (2013)) and me (as author of “One-To-One Speech vs. One-To-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and ‘Cyberstalking,'” 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731 (2013));Daniel Lyne and Ted Folkman of Murphy & King were kind enough to serve as our pro bono counsel. I quote the brief below, though you can also read the PDF version.

Better to read this on the blog as it contains links to the documents and much more detail.

 

[Cubanodun]

Mystery 8chan benefactor strikes again:

Spoiler: I love this

Meanwhile, Gawker remains defiant:


And the opposition is distressed:

Spoiler: NeoGaf Rages

Fuckers have more salt than that game I bought for PS4 this week.

The "We Won't" tweet is from 2013

 

[c-no]

Mystery 8chan benefactor strikes again:

Spoiler: I love this

Meanwhile, Gawker remains defiant:


And the opposition is distressed:

Spoiler: NeoGaf Rages

Fuckers have more salt than that game I bought for PS4 this week.

Such salt and butthurt. Gawker was told to take the sex tape down and choosing not to only made it worse. As for how damaging the verdict could be to press freedom, I think that requires the sex tape to not be a violation of ones privacy. If all these people are getting butthurt for the lack of Gawker, one may as well get those salty tears and make a Long Island ice tea. The court case wasn't about racism but instead about privacy and Gawker ended up violating it by being sleazy in keeping it despite being told to take it down.

 

[I-chi]

There's only one way this can truly be settled.

vs

Make it happen, Hulk.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Final verdict: TRIAL BY COMBAT

Hulk and Denton must fight to the death. Winner take all.

 

[DrunkTails]

This just in: Hulk Hogan awarded 115 million USD in damages from Gawker

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35849140

I'm disappointed that this court case didn't end with the judge resolving the issue with a cage match between the Hulkster and the gawker staff and still have Gawker pay for the damages. Watching them trying to climb out of the cage whilst Hogan suplexed Denton would be the stuff of history.

 

[millais]

Look how pussywhipped Denton and Daulerio look at the trial

 

[DrunkTails]

Look how pussywhipped Denton and Daulerio look at the trial

Denton looks like he's saying 'Why are you looking at me?' as if he did nothing wrong. Sad thing is that he seriously thinks that he did nothing wrong despite the fact that the court told him before to remove the video and flat out refused to do so.

 

[Whatisgoingon]

This is what I've been looking forward to. All these people finally understanding that there are consequences for all the bullshit they've pulled, and the resulting salt from it. I am in pure ecstasy.

 

[MiloWuCollusion]

Regardless about how this veredict affects Free Speech issues, I must say that is impressive how many people have low opinion of Gawker and their sites. Even Neogaf, walking in eggshells, expressed joy about the event, even if they needed to bitch about GG or how Patrick Klepeck is in his right to doxx Jaime Walton.

But in any case:

Sister @Spectator finishing the job

This made my day.

(but if Kotaku goes down... I hope he doesn't return to Giant Bomb, Austin Walker is better in being the SJW of the site while still being somehow funny and not being overpolitical, something that Patrick was never able to do)

 

[MayMay]

Such salt and butthurt. Gawker was told to take the sex tape down and choosing not to only made it worse. As for how damaging the verdict could be to press freedom, I think that requires the sex tape to not be a violation of ones privacy. If all these people are getting butthurt for the lack of Gawker, one may as well get those salty tears and make a Long Island ice tea. The court case wasn't about racism but instead about privacy and Gawker ended up violating it by being sleazy in keeping it despite being told to take it down.

YOu know there's two things about their 'muh press freedom' that don't sit right.

- These same people would gladly silence the press on anything that might be a problem to them (no media: safe space!)
- Who wants to be nobody would be defending Gawker if not for the fact that the sex tape was of a man? Would they really still holler 'muh freedoms' if someone released a humiliating tape of Zoe Quinn or whoever? Course not.

 

[Butta Face Lopez]

YOu know there's two things about their 'muh press freedom' that don't sit right.

- These same people would gladly silence the press on anything that might be a problem to them (no media: safe space!)
- Who wants to be nobody would be defending Gawker if not for the fact that the sex tape was of a man? Would they really still holler 'muh freedoms' if someone released a humiliating tape of Zoe Quinn or whoever? Course not.

I thought that was already an established thing. They called the leak of female celebrities' nudes a "sex crime," if I recall.

 

[I-chi]

I wanted to inquire again, because there's a ton of "he said, she said" going around about the appeal process, but to anyone savvy: what do you think their chances are? Could they still recover or walk away scotch free?

A friend showed me his power level last night by refusing to source his opinion that "it's going to get reduced because $115m is ridiculous and Gawker will not go down in flames because they still have money.:

 

[AnOminous]

- Who wants to be nobody would be defending Gawker if not for the fact that the sex tape was of a man? Would they really still holler 'muh freedoms' if someone released a humiliating tape of Zoe Quinn or whoever? Course not.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Eugene Volokh, who wrote an amicus brief in Gjoni's case, also shows up to defend Gawker on this one.

Cases like this get a lot more interesting on appeal when the result will create a precedent.

I wanted to inquire again, because there's a ton of "he said, she said" going around about the appeal process, but to anyone savvy: what do you think their chances are? Could they still recover or walk away scotch free?

A friend showed me his power level last night by refusing to source his opinion that "it's going to get reduced because $115m is ridiculous and Gawker will not go down in flames because they still have money.:

It's going to get reduced probably at two stages. First, remittitur in the trial court, since $115 million is above what the plaintiff even asked for. Even if the judge hates them, this is kind of a no-brainer. Also damages have to be somehow rationally related to the harm.

Second, on appeal.

That issue isn't really that interesting, though.

There are a number of reasons for appeal, among them not allowing them to subpoena Bubba the Love Sponge's testimony when he testified in deposition that Hulk knew the recording was happening, an important factual issue in the case. The judge decided he wasn't a credible witness. This is true, since when he was talking to the FBI (and could have been prosecuted for lying to them), he told them Hulk did NOT know the recording was being taken. Also he said he'd take the Fifth if called.

But whether a witness is credible has nothing to do with admissibility. That's up to the jury to decide. So error #1.

Then there's the jury instructions. I won't go into those, but some seem to think the judge all but ordered the jury to find for the plaintiffs. That would be bias.

Then there's that the judge obviously detested the defendants. You can understand why, but judges are supposed to be unbiased. They might have waived this by failing to raise it, I'm not sure. If you think a judge is biased you're supposed to bring it up at the time, not suddenly start claiming that once they rule against you.

Then there's the actual First Amendment issues, which are the most interesting but least likely to get an airing if the appeals court can deal with the issue on some other grounds.

There is NOT a First Amendment "right to videotape someone with a hidden camera while they have sex in their own home and then release it on the Internet."

However, if someone else does that (Bubba in this case), then third parties aren't forbidden from using that to the extent it's newsworthy. It seems in this case they might have conflated what the original villain (Bubba) did with what Gawker did, which was different. Gawker had no obligation to protect privacy that someone else violated.

Of course, obviously, this case is about the claim that Gawker et al went well beyond this and themselves invaded privacy, a claim the jury bought.

Appeals courts don't generally overturn factual findings of the jury. It's not up to an appeals court to do that. They generally only review whether the proceedings went along in a legally correct manner, in general, was there a fair trial.

I have a generally good opinion of the appeals court in this case, the Second District Court of Appeals.

 

[I-chi]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Eugene Volokh, who wrote an amicus brief in Gjoni's case, also shows up to defend Gawker on this one.

Cases like this get a lot more interesting on appeal when the result will create a precedent.



It's going to get reduced probably at two stages. First, remittitur in the trial court, since $115 million is above what the plaintiff even asked for. Even if the judge hates them, this is kind of a no-brainer. Also damages have to be somehow rationally related to the harm.

Second, on appeal.

That issue isn't really that interesting, though.

There are a number of reasons for appeal, among them not allowing them to subpoena Bubba the Love Sponge's testimony when he testified in deposition that Hulk knew the recording was happening, an important factual issue in the case. The judge decided he wasn't a credible witness. This is true, since when he was talking to the FBI (and could have been prosecuted for lying to them), he told them Hulk did NOT know the recording was being taken. Also he said he'd take the Fifth if called.

But whether a witness is credible has nothing to do with admissibility. That's up to the jury to decide. So error #1.

Then there's the jury instructions. I won't go into those, but some seem to think the judge all but ordered the jury to find for the plaintiffs. That would be bias.

Then there's that the judge obviously detested the defendants. You can understand why, but judges are supposed to be unbiased. They might have waived this by failing to raise it, I'm not sure. If you think a judge is biased you're supposed to bring it up at the time, not suddenly start claiming that once they rule against you.

Then there's the actual First Amendment issues, which are the most interesting but least likely to get an airing if the appeals court can deal with the issue on some other grounds.

There is NOT a First Amendment "right to videotape someone with a hidden camera while they have sex in their own home and then release it on the Internet."

However, if someone else does that (Bubba in this case), then third parties aren't forbidden from using that to the extent it's newsworthy. It seems in this case they might have conflated what the original villain (Bubba) did with what Gawker did, which was different. Gawker had no obligation to protect privacy that someone else violated.

Of course, obviously, this case is about the claim that Gawker et al went well beyond this and themselves invaded privacy, a claim the jury bought.

Appeals courts don't generally overturn factual findings of the jury. It's not up to an appeals court to do that. They generally only review whether the proceedings went along in a legally correct manner, in general, was there a fair trial.

I have a generally good opinion of the appeals court in this case, the Second District Court of Appeals.

Thank you for your imput, sir. Then it's correct not to count our chickens just yet, I presume.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

So by how much could they see the damages reduced?

It seems to me that the jury considered this as a revenge porn issue, which it kind of is. Even with all your own legal stuff, it still looks like Gawker isn't going to walk away unscathed at all.

 

[QI 541]

Homer got banned on twitter.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAc..._rugliabeoulve_a_k_aramzaruglia_here_and_ive/