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

241–250 of 335 posts

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

#241

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

> But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence

for their illegal actions... maybe it's unfair that the companies that piss off a billionaire are more likely to be called on their illegal actions, but the solution is more focus on legal aid, not fewer legit lawsuits.

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

#242

Post by jondubois »

It's quite bourgeois of Peter Thiel to concern himself with such petty things. He should focus his ego, his money and his attention on more important matters. Nobody really cares about him and his famous friends being offended by Gawker - In fact, quite a lot of people enjoy reading that crap. Since when is Mr Thiel's emotional comfort more important than the people's right to information (albeit gossip)?

If I could be as wealthy as Peter Thiel, I wouldn't give a damn about what the media wrote about me. Maybe I would just quietly cry myself to sleep in my gold-plated bed inside my luxurious NYC penthouse.

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

#243

Post by emodendroket »

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'm not going to make a judgment about whether it crosses over into being unethical, but a rich man trying to shut down a news outlet because he doesn't like what they said about him at least raises questions.

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

#244

Post by metaphorm »

imgabe wrote: post #225
djrobstep wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A libertarian using the power of government to crush free speech is pretty hypocritical if not unethical.

Libel and slander are not recognized as protected speech.

libel and slander are defined as writing or saying _false_ things that damage a person's reputation or property. if the damaging statement is _true_ its not libel or slander.

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

#245

Post by robbiemitchell »

nikcub wrote: post #69
GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because they published things that have been good journalism allows them carte blanche to publish things that break the law and are morally reprehensible? I find this logic baffling.

I find the logic that freedom of speech only applies to journalism you agree with baffling. It's straight out of the 21st century authoritarians playbook - nobody is dumb enough to admit that their actions are against the principles of freedom, but people are dumb enough to agree with those same actions when you simply redefine who those principles apply to. It's the new-newspeak, see how Putin has as much power as a…

Just to be clear, the freedom of speech is not absolute. It _is_ possible to violate someone else's First Amendment rights while exercising your own, to the point where a judge or jury must decide who is at fault (if anyone) and why. The limits to free speech have been shaped over time by laws and by precedent. In this case, a jury found that Gawker went too far.

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

#246

Post by robbiemitchell »

hysan wrote: post #231

I haven't made up my mind on who is right, if there is even a right side to this situation. But I am wondering one thing: For those who believe that Thiel's financial backing is unethical because it makes it unfair, how so? Doesn't that line of logic presume that the court system is completely ruled by money? Is that how the legal system works in America? Money wins? edit: Not sure why I got downvoted. I'm trying to…

> Is that how the legal system works in America? Money wins?

Ask any small company dealing with a giant patent troll.

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

#248

Post by robbiemitchell »

mikeyouse wrote: post #177
sanxiyn wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.

That is a terrifying mentality. Should Romney have been able to sue about his 47% comments? Why is everyone so content to march into fascism?

Romney could sue, but he would lose.

You can sue any time you want. That's how the US legal system works.

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

#250

Post by Isofarro »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #208
thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative? If you can't afford to sue a company rightfully you don't get to? What is wrong with paying someone's legal fees, regardless of your motives? Are you going to make transfers of money illegal? He could've lost the case in the court of law and lost his money.

Perhaps not phrased well enough in my post, but as I said, my personal take is that - so long as the quality of access to justice can't be fully separated from wealth - third-party funding of lawsuits should be allowed, just not in secret. For an immediate fix: have parties disclose any third-parties funding their suits and any conflicts of interests they might have with the opposing side. Make the judge and jury awa…

The Bollea v Gawker case itself is already a counter-argument to your suggested fix.

What would have been different if it was known upfront Bollea had third party funding and was willing to use it? The facts of the dispute haven't changed, so the end result should not have changed.

The main effect is that Gawker may have changed their approach to defending/settling the case. Which is a good argument not to disclose how the applicants are funded.

Post reply on HN