Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gawker wasn't some bastion of journalism - it was a libelous rag, good riddance.
Freedom of the press for only publications we like is not really valuable.
Libel and ignoring court orders is not part of a free press.
Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
251–260 of 335 posts
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#252I absolutely despise Gawker. The stories they run and the stuff they do would normally mean that I would love for them to be run into the ground. At the same time, they are the only independent online media outlet left in the world. Every other company that once prided itself on being "independent" from the large media network owned by ancient billionaires has now received at least hundreds of millions of dollars in…
> They could do whatever the hell they wanted, publishing for the editorial integrity rather than to get pageviews.
I don't understand how this applies to a sex tape.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly what is unethical about his conduct here? I really don't understand what problem anyone has with this.
I don't think Thiel is being unethical and I think the decision in this case was valid. That said I do in general have a problem with all this. I mean what does it say about our justice system when a millionaire needs a billionaire to help seek justice for himself. Is that how it's going to be in the future? If you find yourself wronged by some massively wealthy or powerful entity you now have to find an equally mass…
It was given that Thiel works in the same system.
Donate to the ACLU if you want things to change but don't blame a good thing for being done. Hopefully this will lessen the likelyhood of lawsuits needed to be brought in the future.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If it is true, then a lawsuit for defamation should not be successful.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#255Earlier 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.
The problem is not that Thiel's action here is unethical or illegal so much as it breaks norms. That's why you get so many slippery-slope arguments.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#256Earlier 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…
If Gawker hadn't published anything litigable, they wouldn't have had any problems. If there is a litigable claim, there should be at least the possibility that the person who is being litigated against has done something wrong. Who cares about the motives of the person exposing the wrongdoing as long as it's accurate?
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly what is unethical about his conduct here? I really don't understand what problem anyone has with this.
It's unethical because (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge, (b) he appears to be behind the decision to drop a certain charge from the lawsuit only so that Gawker wouldn't have insurance cover - it shows vindictiveness, (c) Thiel's goal seems to be to bankrupt and shut down Gawker. Most of all, if this was indeed above board and ethical, why did Thiel feel the need to do this su…
> (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge
That would be unethical if the case were frivolous, or designed to bankrupt Gawker through "court fees" defending themselves against unreasonable complaints, or so on.
Gawker's going bankrupt, if they do, because they lost the case, for what I think were correct reasons. It can not be unethical to help someone get justice they were owed. If there are more cases like this one, I hope the plaintiffs win those cases too.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The critique of Thiel is not about the particulars of this case. Say there was some absurd exculpatory event, like it comes out that Hogan paid Gawker to publish the video. It ultimately wouldn't matter: Thiel would continue to locate and fund lawsuits against Gawker. The concern is that this is a generic strategy for destroying any media org you dislike. Simply locate and fund any and all lawsuits, forever. Any crit…
Yeah I'm with you on that angle. Dumping money onto lawyers to attack people you don't like costs them legal fees to simply defend themselves.
The post I was responding to was advocating apparently limitless free speech, though. Chilling effects SHOULD apply to certain things, and unapproved pornography of yourself maybe should be one of those?
Limitless speech but limited recourse isn't worth advocating, IMO.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#259I 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…
This is complicated! Yes, America is very different to the rest of the western democracies, in that it's typical that the loser pays attorneys' fees in civil cases in other countries, but this is not true in the US. So you can bankrupt someone by filing many lawsuits against them, even if you lose them all, assuming you had more money than them to start with.
However! That is totally not what happened here. "Loser pays" would not help because Thiel/etc won the case, I think rightly so. A case can't be frivolous if you win a huge judgement.
So I agree with you that there doesn't seem to be anything dramatically concerning about this case, though I'd still argue that there's a gigantic "money wins" problem in the US due to lack of "loser pays" rules.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
People with more resources win more lawsuits. Do you believe that this is because they are more frequently wronged?
Gawker didn't lose this trial because they ran out of money to pay their lawyers, they lost because a jury of their peers found they were guilty as sin.
They lost because a billionaire, who didn't like them for reasons entirely independent of the merits of the case, spent time and resources canvassing for opportunities to punish Gawker.
As Thiel himself said, "even someone like Terry Bollea who is a millionaire and famous and a successful person didn’t quite have the resources to do this alone."
Thiel also said that, but for his involvement the plaintiffs would have accepted a pittance. The outcome is largely a consequence of an the intervention of an outside party, not merely the merits of the case itself.