Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 335 posts

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#81

Post by zardgiv »

siddboots wrote: post #40
zardgiv wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His stated goal, "deterrence," is the exact thing people talk about when they worry about a chilling effect. The fact that people are applauding because it's someone they disagree with whose ox is getting gored is really disappointing for a community that espouses such strong freedom of speech principles.

If the intended deterrent is simply the cost defending or settling, then you are right, it is no different to a SLAPP suit. However, our legal system holds that even where we have freedom of expression, we still have a responsibility to not invade people's privacy, and not cause them emotional harm. A court found that Gawker didn't act according to those responsibilities, so they owed damages. That's exactly the kind…

From the article, the reason we know that Thiel was funding this in the first place:

"[...] an unusual decision Mr. Bollea’s legal team made: It purposely excluded a claim that would have allowed Gawker’s insurance company to help pay for its defense as well as damages."

That speaks quite loudly to the intent of the deterrent, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned who was paying, since insurance company money is just as green as Gawker's.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#82

Post by GrumpyYoungMan »

zardgiv wrote: post #73
GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, your argument then seems to be "They do have a moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose some of the time but the rest of the time they break the law". That's not much improvement, I would think.

I don't feel like you're really trying to engage critically here.

The feeling is mutual, sir.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#83

Post by knowtheory »

darawk wrote: post #24
madeofpalk wrote: post #16

Josh Marshall, from John Gruber: It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They’ve published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that’s a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the…

This is a poorly thought out argument. He isn't doing anything under-handed or illegal to destroy Gawker. He isn't fabricating evidence against them or paying off cops. He's simply financing a non-spurious lawsuit, which the courts have decided was legitimate. This is exactly what I want the billionaires in our society doing. He may be acting in his own self-interest, but it also happened to align with the public int…

Given that our courts are publicly funded and have limited bandwidth and throughput, your suggested solution faces serious resource constraints.

Additionally, Thiel is altering the normal course of how these cases would have gone and specifically notes that here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...

It's one thing to say that funding a lawsuit is fine, and another thing to say that its fine to target an organization to ensure that every grievance against them does not settle out of court and goes to trial.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#84

Post by saint_fiasco »

darawk wrote: post #37
dopamean wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it also happened to align with the public interest. That is debatable and also the problem. What if it didn't align with the public interest? Is it ok then?

Yes. It is always ok to finance a lawsuit. The premise of our legal system is that optimal adversaries debating in front of an impartial judge produce the best possible outcome. If Hogan wasn't able to finance the lawsuit on his own, that would be the perversion of justice. But if our court system operates as it should, and there is no indication to my knowledge that it has not in this case, then billionaires funding…

Spending lots of money on lawsuits has the effect of increasing the demand on lawyers (making them more expensive for other people) and courts (making them more slow for other cases).

The resources the justice system spent chasing Thiel's personal vendetta could have been used for cases other people think are more important. That's why other people complain about it.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#86

Post by tardos »

darawk wrote: post #24
madeofpalk wrote: post #16

Josh Marshall, from John Gruber: It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They’ve published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that’s a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the…

This is a poorly thought out argument. He isn't doing anything under-handed or illegal to destroy Gawker. He isn't fabricating evidence against them or paying off cops. He's simply financing a non-spurious lawsuit, which the courts have decided was legitimate. This is exactly what I want the billionaires in our society doing. He may be acting in his own self-interest, but it also happened to align with the public int…

He is very much doing something under-handed to destroy Gawker.

Gawker owns insurance to decouple financial harm from existential harm in the case of lawsuits like these. The civil system expects that victims who are harmed will try to maximize expected payout in case of a suit. If Hulk's legal case is indeed robust, he should have included every possible harm in the suit to maximize his payout.

The decision to structure the suit in a way that excludes Gawker's insurance coverage is an under-handed technique which turns a civil suit into an indirect tactic to destroy Gawker. It is underhanded because, at the very least, it violates an expected principle of the civil suit system. This signals that the goal of the suit is not to compensate Hulk for damages, but to put Gawker out of business.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#87

Post by saint_fiasco »

zardgiv wrote: post #23
forgotpwtomain wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, Is there some method of 'destruction' that isn't reported on here, other than Peter Thiel financing Hulk Hogan's lawsuit? I think you are going to be hard-pressed to find people that think Gawker should be able to publish a 'sex tape', ignore a court order to take it down, because it's 'journalism'.

They specifically dropped the part of the case that would allow an insurance payout. Typically, people who don't want to destroy an organization will prefer to get the more assured money from insurance.

Should Gawker be able to publish a 'sex tape', ignore a court order to take it down, then pay a slightly higher insurance premium which to them is just 'cost of doing business' at this point, just because they are 'journalists'?

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#88

Post by eudox »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #68
eudox wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The free press" is rather a grandiose title for a rag like Gawker. If Gawker counts as part of "the free press" -- the people Americans trust with the privilege of mediating their access to much information -- then yes, "the press" deserves whatever it gets.

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

Denton and the people in his employ have their right to free speech, and Hulk Hogan has the right to use the beautiful system of Anglosphere common law -- certainly the best legal system in the world -- to deal with Gawker's poison.

(Goebbels and Stalin is a bit too hyperbolic, I think. Maybe try and scale it down -- say, Joe McCarthy.)

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#89

Post by meric »

capkutay wrote: post #32
darawk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a poorly thought out argument. He isn't doing anything under-handed or illegal to destroy Gawker. He isn't fabricating evidence against them or paying off cops. He's simply financing a non-spurious lawsuit, which the courts have decided was legitimate. This is exactly what I want the billionaires in our society doing. He may be acting in his own self-interest, but it also happened to align with the public int…

Basically any influence by 'extremely wealthy' is automatically viewed as an attack on 'freedom'. It's a straw-man political argument.

Yes, influence of extremely wealthy should ideally be limited to financial, and in consumption, instead of in information and politics.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#90

Post by jsjohnst »

cft wrote: post #63
darawk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a poorly thought out argument. He isn't doing anything under-handed or illegal to destroy Gawker. He isn't fabricating evidence against them or paying off cops. He's simply financing a non-spurious lawsuit, which the courts have decided was legitimate. This is exactly what I want the billionaires in our society doing. He may be acting in his own self-interest, but it also happened to align with the public int…

The problem with this argument that this is asymmetric. Most ordinary people will not have problems like Peter Thiel had, since outing them has no entertainment value. This is sort of a rich-only problem. Most ordinary people have problems like being screwed by their health insurance (denied claims), bank, some other big company, etc. I had for example a case when my business accounts got suddenly frozen by Wells Far…

I'm certainly not rich or famous in any stretch of the imagination, yet Gawker felt inclined to personally slander me multiple times. So implying that only folks like Thiel have a reason in stopping the bullying that they do isn't accurate.
Post reply on HN