Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JonFish85 3129 days ago
"What he basically did was say, "don't ever print anything negative about a billionaire because they can take down your entire business""

No, he didn't. Gawker died on its own merits; in an alternative world where Gawker continued to flaunt the law because someone couldn't afford to fund a lawsuit, I'm OK with this outcome. Not to mention, Gawker did themselves absolutely no favors, from ignoring a federal judge to flippantly answering questions under oath, they garnered no pity from me.
2 comments
jedberg 3129 days ago
I agree, Gawker was awful and deserved to die for many reasons.

But it's important to remember that the judgement was only the death blow -- defending the lawsuit was what gave them a slow death. Even if Gawker was right and won, they still would have died.

link
sangnoir 3129 days ago
> No, he didn't. Gawker died on its own merits

Just-world fallacy. If I had an axe to grind with you and had unlimited funds - how many of your negative interactions with (contractors|coworkers|neighbours|acquaintances) in the past couple of years could be escalated to financial ruin? If you survive the first suit, how many more could you stomach before declaring bankruptcy?

By accident or design, the fact that legal action is expensive acts as a brake on suits without much merit (to a degree).

link