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

261–270 of 335 posts

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

#261

Post by kedean »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #120
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.

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.

It is, but that's not what Thiel is trying to do. He is backing an unrelated lawsuit in an effort to squash them. The action that he had a problem with, them outing him, is in no way illegal, so he got into a proxy war against them. That is unquestionably unethical. The ethical thing for him to do would be to come at them head on in the public arena.

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

#262

Post by MollyR »

sinxoveretothex wrote: post #108
partiallypro wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Gawker defended posting Hogan's sex tape even when a judge told them to take it down, AND also condemned people for the fappening. Hypocrisy at its finest.

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

#263

Post by zardgiv »

ryanlol wrote: post #192
zardgiv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said above, it seems that for a lot of people, the freedom of speech rhetoric just comes down to whose ox is getting gored.

I really don't think you understand what freedom of speech is. Peter Thiel isn't a government entity, but an individual. He by definition cannot do anything to restrict gawkers freedom of speech.

Two ways in which you're wrong here:

First, Peter Thiel used the court system, an arm of the government, to pursue a personal vendetta and suppress their speech.

Second, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government intervention, but freedom of speech is a concept that exists outside the U.S. Constitution.

I hope this clarifies things and helps you better understand the situation.

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

#264

Post by MollyR »

Camillo wrote: post #72
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…

A: "Thiel financing the lawsuit against Gawker is a thread to freedom of the press." B: "Twitter, Facebook etc. 'curating' political viewpoints is not a threat to free speech because it's not the government." The intersection of people arguing A and people arguing B.

I noticed this too, but I'm not sure what it means.

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

#265

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

cjbprime wrote: post #257
r0h1n wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Would Gawker go bankrupt if the damages were set at $10 million? What about $20 million? $100 million? Why not $1 billion.

Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair?

Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would you keep true to your word that you hope more cases like this happen and that the plaintiffs win those cases too?

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

#266

Post by zardgiv »

whatok wrote: post #217
zardgiv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as we're quoting someone with an obvious vested interest, how do you feel about what Gawker points to: "Hillary Clinton’s secret email account, Bill Cosby’s history with women, the mayor of Toronto as a crack smoker, Tom Cruise’s role within Scientology, the N.F.L. cover-up of domestic abuse by players and just this month the hidden power of Facebook to determine the news you see.” It's not so cut and dry, wh…

How many of these were things Gawker originally sourced and how many of them were things that they quoted a few paragraphs and added a snarky/self-righteous sentence or two to?

Quick check: is there an answer to this question that would change your mind? If so, what is it?

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

#267

Post by cjbprime »

wpietri wrote: post #178
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…

> He could not have done anything at all to them if the cases were not meritorious. That's not true at all. One jury verdict (before appeals have been heard) plus a bunch of nascent suits is no proof of eventual merit. It could be that every single one of those cases eventually ends up getting dismissed, or being awarded negligible verdicts. But because Gawker may not be able to afford a full defense, they could well…

You're right that the lack of "loser pays" for legal fees in these cases is disturbing. But so far there's been precisely one case, and I subjectively claim (as have legal experts) that it raised important and non-frivolous legal questions that deserved to be answered, and my opinion is that the jury reached the correct verdict.

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

#268

Post by metaphorm »

imgabe wrote: post #254
metaphorm wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

if its a trial by jury then the verdict is whatever the jury renders. the ambiguity, however, leaves lots of room open for appeals, which is exactly whats going on in Terry Bollea v Gawker right now.

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

#269

Post by cjbprime »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #265
cjbprime wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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…

Would Gawker go bankrupt if the damages were set at $10 million? What about $20 million? $100 million? Why not $1 billion. Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair? Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would yo…

> Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair?

Yes, it is. Much of the damages were economic. He lost his job with WWE due to Gawker's publication. That's how much his job was paying him. It is a good thing that people can get economic damages from courts, even if they are rich. (Though it would be much better if everyone could receive the same level of justice as Hogan did, regardless of how rich they are.)

> Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would you keep true to your word that you hope more cases like this happen and that the plaintiffs win those cases too?

I'm so confused by this argument. The reason I hope more people in Hogan's situation win their cases is that I think the jury verdict was correct, and achieved justice for him, as it would for them too.

I expect I would be personally unhappy about losing millions, as anyone would. But it would only be wrong if it was for an unjust reason. That's not the case here. There is no hypocrisy in wanting just cases to succeed and unjust cases to fail.

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

#270

Post by Karunamon »

robbiemitchell wrote: post #246
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.

Except the difference here is that Gawker is a multimillion dollar corporate entity with access to the same tier of representation as Hogan.

This isn't some David vs Goliath story.

Post reply on HN