Gawker Founder Nick Denton Files For Bankruptcy (nydailynews.com) 138
An anonymous reader quotes a report from New York Daily News: Gawker's founder Nick Denton filed for personal bankruptcy Monday after a Florida appeals court refused to give him an emergency order that would block wrestler Hulk Hogan from collecting on a $140 million jury verdict. The District Court of Appeal in Lakeland, Fla., denied a request by Gawker and Denton to stay a ruling by lower court judge Pamela Campbell -- who said Hogan could start collecting on his award immediately. But declaring bankruptcy will give Denton protection from collectors including Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea. In the filing, Denton says he has assets of $10 to $50 million and liabilities of $100 to $500 million. His debts includes $125 million that he owes to Hogan, an $11.5 million loan that he took out on June 10 from Silicon Valley Bank, a $50,000 loan he took from his 401(k) at Gawker and his Time Warner Cable bill for $120.88. The jury's March verdict was the result of Gawker's decision to publish a tape on the internet of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. The former WWF star said it was an invasion of his privacy. Gawker filed for bankruptcy shortly after the jury's verdict, but Denton resisted, asking the bankruptcy court to protect him as part of the process. The federal court refused. Now that the Florida courts have opened the door for Hogan to start collecting from Denton, he is expected to follow Gawker into federal bankruptcy court in lower Manhattan.
Nice Guy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe he's making a move into politics. I don't consider a candidate to have the right credentials to run our great nation unless they've been through bankruptcy a few times.
Re: (Score:1)
Well then! Have I got the candidate for you.... Unfortunately.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We've used it at work for at least a decade to prevent Lotus Notes from complaining about no e-mail body.
Re: (Score:2)
STOP ENABLING THE LAZY PEOPLE!
The proper answer, if one was even needed, would have been STFW.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure that racist ass Hogan is much better; only now he can definitely be considered much wealthier.
Re: (Score:2)
There are limits to an expectation of privacy and you're caught out, it's tough cookies for you.
Hogan was screwing someone else's spouse, which many, many, many people have done - and been caught.
While those people were fucking, I'm sure they had "an expectation of privacy" but once caught by whatever means, that's no longer a valid argument, especially when you're a public figure.
And whatever balls are dangling from exposure are going to be deservedly slapped as well.
Tough call (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a real Sophie's Choice trying to decide who to root for in this one. But in any case, you can't just post sex tapes online without consent from everyone in the actual tape. Remember that next time Kim Kardashian has a sex tape 'leaked' and somehow nobody gets sued over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kim Kardashian did sue. She settled for $5 million, and also became famous.
Re: (Score:1)
Kinda revealing that she only got 5 mil for an entire sex tape that tons of people wanted to see, but hogan got 140 mil for a 1 minute clip of a sex tape that nobody wanted to see.
So much for equal pay for equal work...
Re: (Score:3)
Hulk got paid a finder's fee for discovering the world's least sympathetic defendant.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where you're going with either of those. GP (no idea if that was you or not) made a wisecrack about Hulk getting a $150m award for shitty porn. Regardless of whether he gets paid or not, it seems likely to me that Kim got less because a) she settled out of court, and b) Gawker did an abysmal job of defending themselves.
It's also charitable to describe any of what Gawker did as "reporting."
Re: (Score:3)
That's putting it mildly. Basically Gawker though themselves above the law and defended themselves as holier than thou (Your Honor, Gawker does not have to obey your "laws" or "judgements", for we are a Journalistic company and Freedom of the Press trumps all).
Openly defying a court order to take down the video (of which there was no public interest in, so even whistleblower defense won't work) is but one of the transgressions they did during their "defen
Re: (Score:2)
That's a real Sophie's Choice trying to decide who to root for in this one. But in any case, you can't just post sex tapes online without consent from everyone in the actual tape. Remember that next time Kim Kardashian has a sex tape 'leaked' and somehow nobody gets sued over it.
Do you even know what Sophie's Choice is? There is no Sophie's Choice here :-
A person's sex life is as private as they say it is.
A courts order must be followed
Should we withhold justice from people because of a private opinion they hold?
Re: (Score:1)
Peter Thiel is a creep and a tool, sure. But versus Gawker I'm solidly in his corner. Hell... I'd give a hearty three cheers and two thumbs up to Bernard Madoff, Dick Cheney, or even Bill Gates, if any of them were the one destroying gawker.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't know who Thiel was before this happened, and now that I do I still support that side. All Thiel did was fund Hogan in the case over what Gawker actually did, deserved punishment for, and would probably have gotten a slap on the wrist for otherwise. It isn't like he orchestrated some 8 year long clandestine master plan to manipulate Gawker into posting sex tapes and ignoring court orders.
Re:Tough call (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, there can't really be any much doubt that Thiel was planning his revenge for a long time and just waiting for the right opportunity to do so. The guy's company makes software to help the three-letter-agencies spy on us. And he named it Palantir... as in the talisman that the dark lord Sauron used to corrupt Denethor and Saruman, driving the first to madness and suicide, and turning the latter into a minion of pure evil devoted to the destruction of mankind. Like I said: a creep and a tool; or at the very least someone with some seriously Blofeldian aspirations.
But every time I think of Gawker, all of its works, all of its people, all of its history, all of its existence, being utterly consumed and destroyed; I must confess I giggle a little on the inside. It's just a shame they're based in New York and it'd be impractical to raze their building and plow the land through with salt.
Re: (Score:1)
I think this is an ignorant statement. Gawker Media owns more than just 'Gawker'. Their other websites have actual content. I'm pretty sure we can all agree losing Gizmodo, Kotaku, and Lifehacker would be a great loss.
List taken from wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media)
Deadspin – Sports
Gawker.com – New York City media and gossip, tabloid
Gizmodo – Gadget and technology lifestyle
Jalopnik – Cars and automotive culture
Jezebel – Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for women
Kotaku
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. You mean Jezebel isn't just aggressive feminist female supremacists?
Losing Gawker is good, losing Kotaku is good and losing Jezebel makes the whole planet a healthier place.
Re: (Score:2)
BS gawker ruined average peoples lives and got what they deserved. They are the ultimate example of an ugly bully who got cocky and took on the wrong guy. A jury of our peers made this decision and they did the right thing.
Gawker did nothing deserving of this. They did not "ruin average peoples lives". Sure, that sex tape was not something I needed or even wanted to see, (I actually still haven't seen it, don't need to, reading about it is enough for me) ... but a news company gets hold of a sex tape of a celebrity, I expect they feel that they have information the public will view (and they were right). It's not like they planted hidden camera's in Hogan's bedroom. This is standard news cycle stuff. This is not the exclusive
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he wouldn't have minded being outed as much if he hadn't be in Saudi Arabia at the time it was revealed.
Then he should focus on bringing Saudi Arabia down... oh, they're richer than he is. Next best tantrum target? Oh, that newspaper who reported a fact. He sure stomped that journalist down.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't root for any of them. Terry however is the real tragedy here.
He's been used by everyone.
Theil via Hogan (for racist tape not sextape) (Score:3)
This is all about Peter Theil, who is bankrupting Hogan's case. [gawker.com]
That's not why Hogan sued at all, but more importantly Peter Theil is funding the whole thing in retrobution for Gawker outing him as gay around 2008 (while he was funding GOP which has anti-gay policies).
Gawker outed Theil because he was a hypocrite.
Hogan sued about another video.
Here's an explanation: [gawker.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Equally trashy? That's like seeing a father beat up a guy who raped his 2 years old daughter, then say "don't blame the father, the rapist is at least equally wrong".
Gawker made money destroying lives. If anything, every single contributor to Gawker in history should go bankrupt too.
Re: (Score:2)
So choosing for the lesser of two evils is fine if you choose Hillary over Trump, but is hypocritical if you choose the Republicans over the Democrats?
Or is it hypocritical to be for some policies of a political party and against others?
Or is it hypocritical to both be gay and be against gay marriage?
Re: (Score:1)
Their national party platform says otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
1. The GOP just approved a platform that's anti-gay. I was ambivalent about Republicans, but that convinced me that I may need to stomach voting for a few Democrats this November. (Not the lizard queen, btw, Johnson/Weld is my preferred pro-LGBT ticket for president. Thinking voting Democrat for some seats in state legislature and congress I usually vote Libertarian for.)
2. The RNC decided to silence the Log Cabin Republicans. While I've never understood them, the GOP sent a very clear message: we ain't
Gawking at liabilities much? (Score:5, Funny)
Denton says he has assets of $10 to $50 million and liabilities of $100 to $500 million. His debts includes...a $50,000 loan he took from his 401(k) at Gawker and his Time Warner Cable bill for $120.88...
Was there a point in listing a $120 cable bill as a liability for a man allegedly worth millions? I hope they didn't forget to count that Starbucks gift card he got for Christmas with his assets. Fucking seriously...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends.
The general bankruptcy order first is secured creditors (lenders who have collateral), followed by unsecured creditors. The banks normally win because they lend securely - if you own a house with a mortgage, the mortgage is a secured loan. If you have a credit card with the same bank, the bank lines up again in the unsecured lineup to get the amount on the credit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All true, but nobody is questioning why he reported it in his bankruptcy filings.
They are questioning why it made the news, the article, and even the /. article summary. You know the summary where the most important bits of the article are summarized?
It's not even slightly newsworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
They are questioning why it made the news, the article, and even the /. article summary. You know the summary where the first three paragraphs of the linked article are just copy-pasted?
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Was there a point in listing a $120 cable bill as a liability for a man allegedly worth millions?
He is not-so-allegedly worth nothing if he is filing for bankruptcy.
Re: (Score:2)
Default rank (Score:1)
He (hulk) could make a claim he is an individual and entitled to superior claim since the banks are covered by ability to write down loans on a normal and customary basis, but this is an extraordinary circumstance for him.
How did he qualify for a $11.5 million loan? (Score:1)
I'm assuming that this Silicon Valley Bank must do some kind of background check and doesn't just go handing out an $11.5 million loan to anyone. The original trial verdict and the damages were set way back in March. With the slim chance of this appeal working, why would the bank even opt to give him a loan in June?
Seems like either he hid that verdict from the bank, or someone at the bank didn't do their homework, or both. That large of a failed loan could be enough to put some smaller banks out of busi
personally liable? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't how it works...
Incorporation only protects you from actions the company takes, not what you personally do... Since HE personally approved the tape and didn't take it down when ordered to, he has personal liability...
A corporation doesn't shield you from your own actions...
Re: (Score:2)
So much for that flavor of the broken money model (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad reality is that Gawker's broken economic model isn't that different from the the others, and ALL of the mass media (that I know about) is similarly broken. Gawker wanted lots of eyeballs to sell to advertisers, and the website just pushed the edge too hard in their quest for more eyeballs. They fell off, went boom.
The rest of the mass media is competing for eyeballs with Trump antics and disaster porn. Still the same quest for eyeballs to sell.
Gawker went one way, but only a minor difference that Trump has milked the free publicity all the way to the so-called Republican nomination. More serious difference when terrorists milk the free publicity. More like a death spiral on both sides. The mass media is killing itself trying to give the biggest and best free publicity to the terrorists, while the terrorists are killing other people and just trying to kill enough this time to get more publicity than last time.
Alternative economic model to address that last problem: Stop competing for eyeballs when that is supporting the terrorists. Set up a special non-competitive news office (SNCNO?) to handle such publicity-seeking manufactured news. If a story falls into the terrorism-support bucket, then this SNCNO will handle it. They will produce unified reports of the terrorism, and all of the mass media outlets will be allowed to use as much or as little of those reports as they want to. The reports will be accurate consensus of the news, but with no sensationalism or competitive considerations. This economic model would put the shoe on the other foot. Everyone would still need to report the real news, but there would be no incentive to play up the terrorism parts, and the incentive to compete for more eyeballs would be on the REAL news, not the fake manufactured news.
Other economic models available upon polite request. Too bad I don't have an economic model to sell them. They are just too intuitively obvious to the most casual observer (in the literal, not idiomatic, sense).
Re: (Score:2)
Let the other guy get the money that comes from those eyeball baiting news stories?
Yeah, let me sell that to Fox News and CNN, see how that goes....
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you see the problem, so at least you are a sufficiently casual observer of that aspect.
The implementation path does seem quite difficult. Let's say you could get some sort of consensus among the responsible news organizations (if any still exist), then how do you get the bad boys to come along? (I'm sure that FAUX "news" is bad, but these days CNN may be transcending the very notion of "bad".) Appeal to their patriotism? "We have to show Trump's empty podium! An actual speech from Bernie Sanders doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
Set up a special non-competitive news office (SNCNO?) to handle such publicity-seeking manufactured news
I think you either misspelled "NPR" or "BBC" but I can't decide which country you're from;)
Also: blowing people up with bombs and shooting people is news. There's an old adage from the newspaper era "If it bleeds, it leads" which predates television.
Lastly, if stopping terrorism is your goal, maybe we could stop invading/bombing foreign countries? We've not tried that in over a decade -- it might even wo
Re: (Score:2)
It's spelled NHK here, but their economic model is broken for other reasons.
I'm trying to focus on the distinctions among types of news. I think it is perfectly reasonable to compete for eyeballs on the basis of investigations into real problems. They used to call them "Scoops" in those pre-TV days you mentioned. These days, the speed of the Internet has basically destroyed that economic model. There are also naturally occurring news stories like floods and earthquakes where good news coverage is downright
Re: (Score:2)
You want to establish a 'Ministry of Truth' to determine which stories are legit and can be covered by news organizations? What could go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is not what I wrote.
Given your comment, is there any reason I should regard you as intellectually honest or writing in good faith?
My first suggestion is that you might start by READING what I actually wrote. If you cannot understand some part of it, then you should feel free to ask a question. If you cannot understand any of it, then perhaps it is too complicated an idea for you to understand. I will still attempt to answer questions, but my time is limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't write it out, but strongly implied that something should be done about 'fake news stories' being reported. Also in favor of 'alternative economic models', smells strongly of authoritarianism.
I suspect you started this thought process by lying to yourself. You have no place to criticise intellectual honesty. I quote:
Re: (Score:2)
No, once again you are twisting and distorting what I actually wrote, perhaps projecting your own fears.
Maybe you should try to figure out what my sig means in terms of my underlying philosophy. As it applies to this topic, and though you don't seem to justify the effort, I would summarize it that free competition is a fundamentally good thing, but you should not let your true enemies twist the rules of the competitive game against you.
Far more than your reply merits, but have you considered the overall eco
Re: (Score:1)
Africa may never recover from wh
That was an impressively insane rant (Score:2)
Do you actually believe what you wrote there? If so, then you are ignoring reality to an amazing degree or you are unable to perceive and understand reality. In either of those cases, there is no reason to attempt a discussion.
If you do NOT believe what you wrote, then there is some basis for a discussion around the question "Why?" The most rational reason would be if someone is paying you, but the problem in that case is that you are probably not supposed to admit it.
Seems to be an impasse. Let me predict
Now he can run for President! (Score:1)
Of course.
Only the ultra rich and corporations get to walk out on their debts in Soviet Amerika
Seriously? (Score:2, Funny)
Am I the only one that thinks a $140m settlement is a bit steep for a sex tape of two meth addicts?!
Uhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
His debts includes $125 million that he owes to Hogan, an $11.5 million loan that he took out on June 10
IANAL but I think the bank that loaned him the money can probably nail him to the wall for fraud. It's one thing to take out a loan and go bankrupt, and quite another to take out a loan when you plan on declaring bankruptcy a month later. Any decent lawyer can probably make a case for intent to defraud here. Pretty sure he didn't specify this on his loan application...
Re: (Score:2)
Bank has a responsibility to do due diligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He could also reaffirm the debt. It's not uncommon to reaffirm a mortgage or car loan when filing for Chapter 7. You usually keep the property, continue paying, and everyone goes on their merry way. Now it's probably a little different with that big of a loan, but it's definitely not automatic fraud either.
Follow the money (Score:3)
Bottom line is: death to independent journalism and all money to the already wealthy and powerful. Think what you're told to think via the pre-approved breadcrumbs of information allowed for you by a handful of one-percenters. This is hand-in-glove with the willful destruction of public education in red states, as an ignorant populace is a controllable populace.
USA! indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Bottom line is: death to independent journalism and all money to the already wealthy and powerful.
Problem with this idea is that Gawker isn't journalism. Hmm, maybe once or twice, but mostly, not. It's mostly repeating something someone else said, but with more bold and italics, and bullshit conjecture.
Re: (Score:2)
So they were doing a public service, preserving the People's right to know about Hulk Hogan's sex tape? Such lofty high journalism here...
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on which state they were in at the time it was recorded, remember that adultery is illegal in some states and can include jail time. In some states it's a crime without punishment and/or a cause for divorce without the expense of alimony.
This could be a case were a public figure was engaged in a crime which is totally different.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand: If it was a Jessica Alba and Natalie Portman sex tape, there would be great public interest in the tape being released.
Re: (Score:2)
A law that cannot be enforced [nytimes.com] is effectively not a law even if the legislature has yet to remove it from the books. Just as that deed restriction that says that you cannot sell your suburban home to people of color will neither be enforced nor serve to protect yo
Re: (Score:2)
Read it yourself, idiot. It says CONGRESS shall make no law. Got it? CONGRESS did not make this law, it was a civil trial using COMMON law.
Re: (Score:2)
2/10 on the troll scale. Weak.
Re: (Score:2)
"You have no right to publish video footage of people having sex unless you have their permission."
How do you reconcile this position with the sex-tape cases that have been decided in favor of the publisher?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But when that traitor snowden publishes tons of documents critical to our security, then suddenly its okay??
Yes, it is, because he was showing crimes being committed above him...
Had this sex tape shown Hogan killing someone, then it would have been ok to publish...
Re: (Score:1)
Adultery is illegal in New York where gawker is located and in Florida where it happened although rarely prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
And those people would be wrong in NY and FL. Your personal morals are irrelevant when determining if something is against the law or not.
http://law.justia.com/codes/ne... [justia.com]
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/sta... [state.fl.us]
Of course you'd have to really piss someone in law enforcement/prosecution and be remarkably law abiding in all other areas for someone to try to get a conviction under those laws - but they do in fact exist as laws.
Re: (Score:2)
But until someone challenges it, which won't happen until someone gets charged, which won't happen until the situation I mentioned comes up which never will, they still exist as laws.
The media doesn't decide whether a law is valid or invalid, if the argument is "they can report X because it is a crime, but not Y because it is not a crime" then what other than the current law as written are they supposed to use to determine whether something is a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
In a democratic republic, it's necessary for the people to watch their hired watchmen, because nobody else will. Snowden's "treachery" was an act of patriotism and -- not coincidentally -- of self-sacrifice.
Conversely there's no public interest in the disclosure of Hulk Hogan's sex tape. That puts it on different legal footing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many videos of people having sex were there in snowden's documents, again?