That's about as strong of a maneuver as it gets on Peter's part. To devise such a plot, bravo.
Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
151–160 of 335 posts
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, should they? What if they had a billionaire secretly funding them ;-)
i think the court has definitively answered this question (pending appeals etc), and i personally agree with the judgement.
I haven't read the court transcripts, but I suspect the court didn't address the question of insurance coverage and premiums ;)
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#153>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…
Also don't forget that the incident involved publishing his racist rants which destroyed his career.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#154This is what I sent to my wife about this story earlier today. I think it's true for the public too. "I guess people can do whatever they want with their money. For me the bottom line is that Hogan is a public figure and the definition of “newsworthy” isn’t up to anyone other than media to decide on. Sure, it’s tacky as fuck to report on him fucking his best friends wife and it isn’t any of anyone’s business but the…
There is a big difference, in most people's perception, between "report on him fucking his best friends wife" and "publish video of him fucking his best friend's wife". The former happens all the time for public figures and no one bats an eye.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#155Earlier 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.
A rich person acted out his retributive fantasies by paying a law team for years to trawl through everything Gawker put out in search of litigable offenses. That's unethical on the part of the lawyers, probably, and on the part of Thiel, certainly. He never had a chance to win any personal verdict, so he went nuclear. There's no way that won't have a chilling effect on other media companies who consider whether or not to cover the stupid shit that rich people do.
And it was cheap for him - around $10mm to bankrupt his mortal enemy. There's no way that other rich folks aren't going to do it as well, especially now that he's framing it as a philanthropic act.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
A libertarian using the power of government to crush free speech is pretty hypocritical if not unethical.
Being able to use the courts to sue for defamation is pretty widely accepted as legit by most if not all strains of libertarianism. It's actually a clear example of a valid case in which governmental authority is necessary.
Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny."
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one gave him the authority to control speech. He has money, but we didn't give him the authority to do this. I honestly hope you are wealthy and this viewpoint supports some sort of authoritarian self-interest. Or you're not American I guess.
he isn't "controlling speech". the courts are, by rendering judgement on whether gawker did something that warrants some penalty.
Man hours have a direct impact in court cases. Therefore money is a thumb on the scales of justice.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly what is unethical about his conduct here? I really don't understand what problem anyone has with this.
A rich person acted out his retributive fantasies by paying a law team for years to trawl through everything Gawker put out in search of litigable offenses. That's unethical on the part of the lawyers, probably, and on the part of Thiel, certainly. He never had a chance to win any personal verdict, so he went nuclear. There's no way that won't have a chilling effect on other media companies who consider whether or no…
You make him sound like someone who is filing frivolous lawsuits. The Hogan case involves an outrageous invasion of privacy of extremely dubious newsworthiness, nothing at all like, say, outing a lesbian congresswoman who supports traditional marriage legislation. He's not going through looking for possible gotchas; these cases are pretty clear cut.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#159Earlier 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.
Good; there SHOULD be a chilling effect on publishing private material of the sort being litigated. There's a difference between 'what the public is interested in' and 'the public interest'.
So if it were a Donald Trump sex tape rather than a hulk Hogan one, should airing under a minute of it cost the NYTimes $150M?
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#160Earlier 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."
Gawker is not liable for publishing a story about Hogan's sex tape. They are liable for publishing the actual explicit sex tape without his consent.