I feel like hes allowed to do what he wants with his influence/money/connections. If I fell victim to defamation by a news outlet and I had the ability to put a stop to it, I would.
Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
11–20 of 31 posts
Re: Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
#12Good old-fashioned revenge. What's not to like?
Re: Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
#13I feel like hes allowed to do what he wants with his influence/money/connections. If I fell victim to defamation by a news outlet and I had the ability to put a stop to it, I would.
If you fell victim to defamation by a news outlet and you had the ability to put a stop to it, why would you sue the defamer anonymously through a proxy and not directly?
Re: Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charities and nonprofits fund trials againts wealthy opponents all the time. To give people, who can afford it, a chance defend their rights in a trial. Jury and judge make a decision. But when someone with money does the same thing, everybody lose their minds. He only funded Hulk Hogan, his attorneys etc. He didn't bought judge or jury.
My first issue is the "who can afford it" part. People shouldn't get more justice when they're wealthier and less when they're poorer. My second issue is that more money gives a plaintiff access to legal tricks that can overwhelm an opponent with less money. One example is to bury the opponent with discovery. My final problem is that Thiel is not using the justice system to get justice for himself. He's sticking his…
It's still no different from charities and nonprofits, they don't get justice for themselfs either. Thiel saw, that Hogan has a strong case and he's willing to fight for it (but doesn't have enough money to do so). [1]
"One example is to bury the opponent with discovery." You think Gawker is so poor it can't afford first class lawyers?
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
[1] http://observer.com/2016/05/peter-thiels-reminder-to-the-gaw...
Re: Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
#15I'm loving it because Peter Thiel is a f-ing billionaire who is now publicly showing what the 1% of the 1% are capable of. The power that these 0.01% have is staggering. To see what they're capable of with just a few million dollars is truly awesome. And the very best part is that there absolutely nothing we can do about it anymore. We're now officially owned by the 300!
The 0.1% can fund a lawsuit because you published a sex tape.
>We're now officially owned by the 300!
That's a steep slope.
Re: Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
#16The troubling part, to me, is not the case itself. I personally don't believe the sex tape was newsworthy (at least not as much of it as they released). The troubling part is that we have someone secretly using money to manipulate a case in which he is not a direct participant. Wealthy people should not be able to weaponize our legal system.
> someone secretly using money to manipulate a case in which he is not a direct participant.
What manipulation was there?
3rd parties funding lawsuits is not a new, it's been happening for centuries.
Re: Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charities and nonprofits fund trials againts wealthy opponents all the time. To give people, who can afford it, a chance defend their rights in a trial. Jury and judge make a decision. But when someone with money does the same thing, everybody lose their minds. He only funded Hulk Hogan, his attorneys etc. He didn't bought judge or jury.
My first issue is the "who can afford it" part. People shouldn't get more justice when they're wealthier and less when they're poorer. My second issue is that more money gives a plaintiff access to legal tricks that can overwhelm an opponent with less money. One example is to bury the opponent with discovery. My final problem is that Thiel is not using the justice system to get justice for himself. He's sticking his…
Seems like your problem is with the legal system, not Thiel.
Which is completely fair. "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
Re: Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
#18There is a big difference here. In China the press is censored by the state. In this case Gawker was allowed full freedom by the state to print what they chose. But the individual who felt his privacy or whatever was damaged sought redress through a Civil trial. The press has many protections for what they write, where an individual has little ability to fight back when they have been wronged. And it takes lots of mo…
What I think: Thiel saw an opening in both Gawker's reputation and the legal system, and made a deadly move.
And to clarify, I am not equating this case to censorship, but rather to setup some context that we have seen much worse :)
But what troubles me is really how SV response to this case:
- There are no better ways and so be it.
This is what Chinese call: the limit of democracy and freedom.
And Thiel get VCs to agree with him in this case. Even though I believe many VCs hold different view on democracy and liberty.
So I am personally troubled by their reactions.
Re: Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
#19There is a big difference here. In China the press is censored by the state. In this case Gawker was allowed full freedom by the state to print what they chose. But the individual who felt his privacy or whatever was damaged sought redress through a Civil trial. The press has many protections for what they write, where an individual has little ability to fight back when they have been wronged. And it takes lots of mo…
What I think: Thiel saw an opening in both Gawker's reputation and the legal system, and made a deadly move. And to clarify, I am not equating this case to censorship, but rather to setup some context that we have seen much worse :) But what troubles me is really how SV response to this case: - There are no better ways and so be it. This is what Chinese call: the limit of democracy and freedom. And Thiel get VCs to a…
The reason many people don't think there is a better way is because this case involves two opposing forces of the same principle, free speech.
On one hand, media outlets should ideally feel un-intimidated in publishing stories. On the other hand, people should be allowed to support causes with money. Both are widely considered in America to fall under freedom of speech. So it's balancing act. There is no optimal solution, there are only tradeoffs.
This is also ignoring the facts that are highly favorable to Thiel's case: what Gawker did really was illegal and reprehensible, and also let us ignore the fact that Peter Thiel really did not bury Gawker under a mountain of legal fees - the verdict is what did Gawker in, not the legal fees which I'm sure are less than $10 million (Gawker can afford that)
Re: Does the whole Thiel vs. Gawker thing trouble you?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charities and nonprofits fund trials againts wealthy opponents all the time. To give people, who can afford it, a chance defend their rights in a trial. Jury and judge make a decision. But when someone with money does the same thing, everybody lose their minds. He only funded Hulk Hogan, his attorneys etc. He didn't bought judge or jury.
My first issue is the "who can afford it" part. People shouldn't get more justice when they're wealthier and less when they're poorer. My second issue is that more money gives a plaintiff access to legal tricks that can overwhelm an opponent with less money. One example is to bury the opponent with discovery. My final problem is that Thiel is not using the justice system to get justice for himself. He's sticking his…
Let's not ignore that Gawker had top lawyers too. Remember, it's really the $140 million verdict that's going to kill Gawker. Not the legal fees which I'm sure are well under $10 million (and Hogan - maybe Thiel? - would be on the hook for if he lost)