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

101–110 of 335 posts

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

#101

Post by lazaroclapp »

Natsu wrote: post #77
lazaroclapp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know enough about the case at hand to comment specifically, but arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the general case. Keep in mind that selectively punishing common legal violations is a common censorship tactic in many places. Consider this case in Mexico: "On 12 March 2015, two journalists from MVS, D…

> arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the general case. In which specific cases is it illegitimate? The only answer I've been able to come up with is "when you don't like the person or cause." I mean, if anyone wants to condemn the general case, please remember that you'll be condemning the EFF, ACLU and many s…

It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit (which I agree is hard to prove one way or the other in court) and whether or not you do so openly versus secretly. In the case of the EFF and ACLU, their goal is not to swamp government agencies with lawsuits to the point they close down, or to hurt them economically, their goal is usually either: a) to help someone redress a wrong where they actually care about the wrong or b) to set legal precedent towards a particular policy they support.

I would say there is absolutely no problem if Thiel is funding the lawsuit because he considers Gawker publishing Hogan's tape to be unethical and wants to help Hogan redress that wrong. Although I would perhaps have wanted that disclosed as part of the trial. On the other hand, if Thiel would have funded any lawsuit against Gawker that had a chance, regardless of the other party or the particulars of the case, with the objective of forcing Gawker to shutdown or in order to punish them, then it can be a problem. As another comment pointed out, the hard thing here is that you cannot always tell one from the other. Perhaps strong funding sources disclosure requirements represent a reasonable improvement?

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

#102

Post by zorpner »

eudox wrote: post #92
Spooky23 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular and distasteful speech is the entire purpose of press freedom and free speech. Keep in mind that while many people would agree with you that Gawker is scum, various communities take offense and find tasteless all sorts of other things. Freedom is either near absolute or useless.

I keep that in mind. And this court decision was not made on the basis of how repugnant, malicious or vicious Gawker or Nick Denton are. If Gawker goes bankrupt, it won't be because they're horrible people, it will be because they overstepped the bounds of the law.

No, it will be because a plutocrat decided to fund a lawsuit unrelated to his reason for disliking them (and apparently influenced the process of that lawsuit with the aim of destroying Gawker to the detriment of Bollea), and abused the inherent bias of our courts towards parties with disproportionate resources.

Bollea may well have had a valid case against Gawker, but we'll never know. The idea that a case with a side funded by a vengeful billionaire could be fairly decided in our court system is absurd.

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

#103

Post by TAForObvReasons »

eudox wrote: post #88
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.)

> Goebbels and Stalin is a bit too hyperbolic

Parent was quoting Noam Chomsky

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

#104

Post by Natsu »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #101
Natsu wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the general case. In which specific cases is it illegitimate? The only answer I've been able to come up with is "when you don't like the person or cause." I mean, if anyone wants to condemn the general case, please remember that you'll be condemning the EFF, ACLU and many s…

It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit (which I agree is hard to prove one way or the other in court) and whether or not you do so openly versus secretly. In the case of the EFF and ACLU, their goal is not to swamp government agencies with lawsuits to the point they close down, or to hurt them economically, their goal is usually either: a) to help someone redress a wrong where they actually care ab…

> It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit

Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. The motive is something that exists only in his head--people can, and will, invent motives consistent with whatever their opinion of a person is.

Insofar as there's an argument that lawsuit funding should be open, well, I submit that perhaps the laws on that should be changed if this is truly at issue.

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

#105

Post by zwerdlds »

Spooky23 wrote: post #75
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.

Unpopular and distasteful speech is the entire purpose of press freedom and free speech. Keep in mind that while many people would agree with you that Gawker is scum, various communities take offense and find tasteless all sorts of other things. Freedom is either near absolute or useless.

Are you genuinely advocating the limitless disclosure of nude images of people, with no legal recourse to prevent that?

Am I grossly misunderstanding this case?

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

#106

Post by eudox »

zorpner wrote: post #102
eudox wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep that in mind. And this court decision was not made on the basis of how repugnant, malicious or vicious Gawker or Nick Denton are. If Gawker goes bankrupt, it won't be because they're horrible people, it will be because they overstepped the bounds of the law.

No, it will be because a plutocrat decided to fund a lawsuit unrelated to his reason for disliking them (and apparently influenced the process of that lawsuit with the aim of destroying Gawker to the detriment of Bollea), and abused the inherent bias of our courts towards parties with disproportionate resources. Bollea may well have had a valid case against Gawker, but we'll never know. The idea that a case with a si…

Dude, my dude, Thiel just paid for part of Hogan's legal fees.

That money's not gonna conjure up evidence from the luminiferous aether.

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

#107

Post by FireBeyond »

darawk wrote: post #28
zorpner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important reminder of exactly what conduct, on Gawker's part, people are defending. This is a lousy strawman. It's possible to both find Gawker abhorrent and think that Thiel's conduct is deeply unethical.

Exactly what is unethical about his conduct here? I really don't understand what problem anyone has with this.

I wonder whether Hogan/Bollea was advised by "his" counsel about the ramifications of dropping one of the pieces of litigation - a piece that would have increased the ability for Bollea to collect that damage award.

As it happens the particular tort that was dropped was the only one that would allow Gawker to use their insurance to cover the liability of the verdict awarded.

Thiel's goal is to destroy Gawker. A Gawker that is less able to pay out a verdict (because the verdict was $100M, but Gawker's revenue is only around $40M/yr) is going to go bankrupt, versus potentially staying in business if their insurer pays out.

What's Bollea's goal? To destroy Gawker? Or achieve recompense? Or indeed both?

Given that the counsel used by Bollea in this case is the same lawyer/law firm that Thiel is also channeling significant other money - and clients - to, for exactly the same thing, how clear is it exactly who the firm's client _really_ is - Bollea, or Thiel?

And if Bollea and Thiel's goals are not the same (because as Thiel says, Bollea couldn't afford to do this himself), whose is going to take priority? Was Bollea briefed on the consequences of dropping this part of the suit (thus risking the ability for him to be paid/paid as much)?

If so, was he okay with it? Is he expecting external compensation? Do the lawyers have a conflict of interest here? Is Bollea a knowledgeable/willing partner, or a semi or wholly uninformed pawn?

However reprehensible Gawker is in this, there absolutely a wide crevice where there are perfectly valid ethical questions about Thiel's involvement and motivations in this whole debacle.

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

#108

Post by sinxoveretothex »

partiallypro wrote: post #96
pkinsky wrote: post #4

>He added: “It’s not for me to decide what happens to Gawker. If America rallies around Gawker and decides we want more people to be outed and more sex tapes to be posted without consent, then they will find a way to save Gawker, and I can’t stop it.” An important reminder of exactly what conduct, on Gawker's part, people are defending. They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose. They're scum…

I just imagine the scenario of Gawker being the outlet that leaked the "Fappening" and seeing everyone currently defending Gawker turn an about face. In reality, what they did to Hulk Hogan was more or less, the same, possibly worse than what several women in the Fappening went through.

Do people actually defend the Fappening? I mean, I expect they are happy it happened, but that they know, deep down, that it was wrong. Kind of like peeking at your neighbor undressing through the curtains or what not.

Am I being too optimistic again?

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

#109

Post by ikeboy »

eudox wrote: post #88
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.)

>certainly the best legal system in the world

Citation/argument needed

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

#110

Post by FireBeyond »

eudox wrote: post #106
zorpner wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it will be because a plutocrat decided to fund a lawsuit unrelated to his reason for disliking them (and apparently influenced the process of that lawsuit with the aim of destroying Gawker to the detriment of Bollea), and abused the inherent bias of our courts towards parties with disproportionate resources. Bollea may well have had a valid case against Gawker, but we'll never know. The idea that a case with a si…

Dude, my dude, Thiel just paid for part of Hogan's legal fees. That money's not gonna conjure up evidence from the luminiferous aether.

The issue is that Bollea dropped a part of the lawsuit that would have allowed the award to be paid out by the insurer - that reduces both the likelihood and amount of money that Bollea will receive, on the face of it, acting in a manner contrary to his own best interest, and in Thiel, lawsuit financier's, stated interests.
Post reply on HN