|
|
|
|
|
|
by FireBeyond
590 days ago
|
|
|
Hogan had a deal that was part-ownership of Gawker, entitlements to a share of revenue, and damages, prior to Thiel and his lawyers coming along. How is that not a victory compared to after? "A fraction of the damages, in bankruptcy" doesn't seem quite comparable. |
|
|
[E] Put differently: if I were in Hogan's shoes, and was offered the choice between destroying a shitty publication that went out of their way to expose my personal life in an extremely embarrassing and entirely _not_ newsworthy way; or profiting off that same publication's continued existence? I would absolutely choose the former, because the publication's business model is the problem. Making money off the publication would be _morally_ wrong for me, once given the option of pursuing the destruction of the publication.