Philanthropy = funding projects to make the world a better place, without making a financial profit. This legal campaign is clearly philanthropic, whether or not you like the outcome.
Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
21–30 of 45 posts
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#22I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't like by funding any possible lawsuit against them. But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn…
The issue to me seems that it is just accepted that you need lots of money to use the law properly. If it was just some rando who had his sex tape published by gawker shouldn't he be able to sue them and materially affect them? That he can't or there is the widely accepted belief that he can't is the problem.
Rich guys have extracted revenge on others since there has been wealth, there is nothing new here except the belief that maybe Hogan somehow wouldn't have had a case without Thiel's help? Or maybe gawker could have delayed and played games to price Hogan out of a law suit or something? How isn't that messed up? Sure I get the fear of tons of frivolous law suits but what about serious ones? The poor can't take part.
The Internet has brought on an entire generation of "journalists" without limits, the pendulum will swing back, that's how things tend to work. Gawker and the others were going to continue to push boundaries in the name of profit, not news, until somebody fought back and it should have been long before a celebrity sex tape. It shouldn't take a billionaire backed lawsuit.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#23'The news that (Peter Thiel) just gave the world a master class in how a billionaire can achieve enormous ends with a relatively modest investment'
Off topic but this case is nothing compared to the master class run by Geoge Soros in showing how a billionaire can pervert democracy by funding massive social engineering in all the countries of the European Union.
As Viktor Orban has said "George Soros has published a comprehensive six-point plan promoting the movement of migrants into Europe, in which he has declared that at least one million Muslims should be let into Europe every year. According to this they must be given safe passage, and Europe should be pleased to receive such an opportunity, rather than try to resist it. He also said that this will cost a lot of money, and he will provide the credit needed".
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#24I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't like by funding any possible lawsuit against them. But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn…
I'll tell you exactly why what Peter Thiel is doing makes him a douchebag. He's doing it in secret. What's up with that? I'll tell you. It's because he wanted to avoid any blowback. He's a vindictive coward that wanted to launder his actions through a racist millionare former pro-wrestler plain and simple.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#25I have no idea why everyone thinks this is doing something unusual. Using lawsuits to stifle free speech is commonplace.
For example, using lawsuits to stifle climate skepticism: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenae...
Hillary Clinton was famous for shutting down free speech - her critics had to go all the way to the supreme Court to protect their right to criticize politicians (see citizens united).
Or see SPLC vs Aryan Nation, which is exactly some wealthy philanthropists funding a lawsuit by a third party: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou...
The only thing new about this is that the mainstream media suddenly notices this stuff hitting closer to home.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#26Gawker are scum. They disobeyed a court order. They deserved the lawsuit. If you want freedom of speech to out people and attack everyone, expect people with money to use said money to fight back legally. It's their freedom too.
I completely agree and don't get why so many people are so grossly upset.
Peter Thiel didn't use his money to bribe anyone, he didn't do anything illegal for Hulk. The court made a decision and Gawker needs to live with the consequences...
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah ,There are no good guys here. Criticizing Thiel shouldn't be confused with supporting Gawker , because we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next
> we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next Thiel didn't "punish" anyone. Gawker broke the law, and he helped hold them to account via the legal system. I don't like Thiel one tiny bit. He's a weirdo. But this is, like, the least bad thing a billionaire has ever done to infringe on "free speech". Hypothetically abusing the legal system (eg, many frivolous lawsuits) would be bad, but he hasn't actually done…
>Gawker broke the law
This may seem pedantic, but Gawker didn't break the law. This is a civil case.
>He's a weirdo.
I don't know what to make of this, and it adds nothing to the discussion.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#28I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't like by funding any possible lawsuit against them. But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn…
[deleted]
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#29So the point of the article is complaining that instead of reviewing if publishing some dirt about a few billionaires is within the legal boundaries, Gawker and others might have to do the same if they want to simply throw some dirt about ordinary plebeians as well? (Unpossible! Why would they deserve that?)
And that their plan to continue performing illegal actions because, well, they have bought insurance and can settle their claims with their money has been foiled - well, what has happened to the concept why these laws were made in the first place, that such claims should be an effective deterrent to actually change their behavior?
Gawker made their own bed there. Actions that result in such behavior becoming impractical not only for Gawker, but also for all other publications are (contrary to the OP viewpoint) not only permissible, but even necessary.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#30Because you need a team of lawyers to know that you shouldn't leak a sextape on your site? Thiel didn't need a team of lawyers to scrutinize every article too, the sextape case was big enough he could know it by himself. The press shouldn't have a free pass to publish every salacious article, and should face the consequences of its actions. Great to see the press establishment defending its cast with such fallacious arguments.