Volokh also said that, depending on the state, Geithner could be able to win punitive damages. If the story is false, as Geithner claims, then Gawker would be in far deeper trouble, as it could face a major libel lawsuit. Not only could Geithner extract emotional damages and the like, but Volokh said he could even win “presumed damages,” reflecting the assumption that he must have suffered major damages even if they can’t be directly proven.
Given his successful career prior to the article, the amount of damages inflicted could be all the greater. If the claim is successful, Geithner would be able to claim damages stemming from the harm to his reputation, emotional distress, and more. “Based on what little I know about the story, it sounds like there would be a pretty strong claim,” Volokh said. If the state Geithner lives in allows such suits, Volokh indicated he would have a chance of prevailing. This tort doesn’t exist in every state, and Volokh said suits of this nature are typically restricted to where the plaintiff lives. “The theory is, if there’s certain information that has to do with a person’s private life that would generally be seen as offensive to have revealed, and that is not newsworthy, that can’t be published,” Volokh said. Gawker’s gratutious outing may not just have bruised its reputation, though: It could bruise its pocketbook.Įugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA, told The Daily Caller News Foundation that even if the story is 100 percent true, Geithner could potentially sue Gawker for publishing private facts that served no public purpose. Some have accused Gawker of hypocrisy, calling the article bullying of the sort Gawker has condemned.Įven some Gawker employees are disavowing the article: Blasting the details of his sex life for everybody to hear about accomplishes nothing other than being lurid in some ways, it’s akin to “revenge porn.” He isn’t a political candidate or government official, and he’s never done anything to publicize his sex life or protest gay rights. Gawker has a history of trying to “out” politicians and other public figures as gay, but David Geithner, who is married to a woman and has three children, is no such public figure. Gawker’s decision to publish the article raises huge ethical questions, because it appears to be gratutiously ruining a person’s life for no real reason. Geithner, for his part, has denied everything, telling Gawker he is the victim of a “shakedown.” When Geithner tried to break off the arrangement, Truitt took everything to Gawker’s Jordan Sargent, who published it all. He demanded that Geithner use his personal connections to help Truitt in a housing dispute he has with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Truitt apparently discovered that Geithner is the brother of former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and decided to blackmail him. The gist of the story: A gay male escort, whom Gawker calls “Ryan” but who since has been identified as Leif Derek Truitt, approached Gawker with a series of pictures and text messages that show him planning a sexual encounter with David Geithner, the CFO of media company Conde Nast, in return for $2,500. But Gawker might not just be losing goodwill: It could end up losing a lot of money or even facing criminal charges. The American media has reacted with near-universal revulsion to an article Gawker posted last night ( since taken down) that purports to expose the secret homosexuality of a married executive at Conde Nast.