He gives the impression of being competent because of the results of a single case that wasn't allowed to run its full course. Of the other two cases I know of (not including this one), one was a settlement that was extracted from the same target pretty much exclusively because that target couldn't afford to take any other action and the other was a staggering failure in which every single claim that he made was dismissed on summary judgment. If the jury hadn't awarded such a ludicrously huge value, if the judge hadn't vacated their stay of execution so that they couldn't possibly survive into an appeal, if the target had been large enough to afford to bear those costs until going through an appeal, or if he hadn't been able to go venue shopping by withdrawing the case from a court after filing it when its initial motions were dismissed, he probably would have lost that case. This was happening during that 2014 event that shall not be named and where the supporters of that movement decided to go to after moot (4chans former site owner, and founder) decided any talk of that event was not allowed on his site (because his GF was a Vocal opponent of that movement.)Ĭlick to expand.He won one case on dubious grounds, and in that one case he had an enormous amount of funds behind him and a flurry of incompetence to support him. It happens on Chan's and usually ends up with a mod taking it down within a half hour and a permanent IP ban.) and mods then opened up 8chan. (Something about a screen cap of child porn, they barely had money to run the site. After it was published the gawker community went onto that site and caused it to close it's doors. Jez's "Ordinary Woman's Life Collides with Male Wizard Virgin Online" article. It was easily half "screw Hogan hea a shitlord _ist _ist and blah blah blah good journalism muh freedom of the press gawker din-du-nuffin." And half "screw gawker their ceo is a _ist _ist shitlord Hogan deserves reperations he din-du-nuffin." When the legal community thinks that a lawsuit is bullshit and it ends up being tossed in summary judgment because not a single claim it makes is a correct interpretation of the law, that's a giant red flag that the lawyer either doesn't know what he's doing or doesn't care.īullshit. This suit is similar to that one ( far moreso than it's similar to the Bollea case) and it's still dealing with an area of law that requires plaintiffs to meet an absurdly high bar, so it's entirely reasonable to assume that the same applies here.ĮDIT: When the general public thinks that a lawsuit is bullshit, that's meaningless. "Most" also aren't lawyers, and every lawyer I've seen commenting on the Techdirt case (except Harder, obviously) saw it as frivolous and expected it to be tossed. "Most" didn't bother to actually look into the case law and legal structures around Bollea's claims before declaring that the case was unwinnable. It didn't, and the result is that it ended up being decided on emotional merit by a jury without every having that decision reviewed by a judge higher in the judiciary.Ĭlick to expand.I never thought that the Gawker-Hulk case was unwinnable, no, and I don't care if "most did". That amount was just way beyond anything that anybody expected, and it was enough to crush Gawker out of even the possibility of an appeal.īasically, Bollea almost certainly would have lost that suit had it run its full course. What people didn't expect was for the jury to ignore any actual damages, and to instead award a ridiculously outsized sum of money to Bollea. So basically, the jury made exactly the decision that was expected. Gawker had every reason to assume that they would win on appeal. Note that Bollea had already withdrawn the case from a federal district court and into a Florida state court in order to dodge a probable dismissal from a judge who had already refused an injunction (the state court judge allowed that injuction, incidentally). one that had some bearing on the actual damage that they had done) and then to win on appeal. Their plan was to get hit with a small judgment (ie. Juries have a pretty strong tendency to decide on emotional qualities rather than legal ones, even where that means completely ignoring legal precedent and first amendment protections, and what Gawker had done was so ethically disgusting that they were effectively guaranteed to lose there. Regardless of what others may have thought, Gawker knew that they were going to lose the jury verdict. Just want to expand on the Bollea case here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |