Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

stanfordpolitics.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

#21

Post by slg »

civilian wrote: post #10
nsnick wrote: post #6

How much damage has Peter Thiel done to free speech? This is what Peter Thiel will be remembered for.

I think you're asking a rhetorical question where the answer is in the affirmative. But I would actually like to know how much damage Peter Thiel has done to free speech. Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.

>Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.

Why do so many people ignore this fact? Yes, Thiel funded a lawsuit that bankrupted them. But he won that lawsuit because Gawker committed a crime. I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political causes. Either we agree that a third party is allowed to fund a legal case for political reasons or not. Isn't that in and of itself an issue of free speech?

Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

#22

Post by CalChris »

tryingagainbro wrote: post #3

>>Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007 I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.

Gawker didn't out Thiel.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker...

Being in or out is kind of like a trade secret. You have to protect the trade secret. You can't tell it to your friends who are cool and have it remain a trade secret. Nor can you be semi out.

Thiel didn't like a story about him. Now if Gawker had invaded his privacy he'd have had legal recourse for that. But Gawker didn't invade his privacy and so he took his revenge elseways. And the article wasn't even critical.

http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people

Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

#23

Post by slowandlow »

tryingagainbro wrote: post #17
slowandlow wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did Thiel not just bring a lawsuit himself if he was truly being defamed? I don't see the how he is justified in hiding behind someone else's lawsuit. Seems cowardly to me; not a crime but speaks to his character.

Gawker (apparently) said that Thiel was gay. That's not defamation, it's a fact, so you can't sue.

So Gawker exercised free speech and he was allowed to tag along in an unrelated lawsuit. That sounds like a big loophole in the system. Say what you will about these "smut peddlers" like Gawker but that is an attack on free speech. I amazed more folks in the comments aren't upset about the constitution being perverted in such a way.

Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

#24

Post by myth_buster »

A network graph would have been more efficient than the bulk of 5k words in the article.

The article goes in depth on the first part (Thiel and Stanford Review) but doesn't go into the _how they built a silicon valley empire_ part.

Main takeaway is Thiel has been politically active since his sophomore years and his involvement in the current administration is in agreement with his past. So for most people who knew Thiel, it may not have come as a surprise.

Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

#25

Post by civilian »

iClaudiusX wrote: post #14
civilian wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. You walked the line between "being okay with Peter Thiel destroying gawker" and "being okay with a billionaire destroying press", so you're probably getting downvoted from both sides. :] SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take…

That justice is not blind to personal wealth is a travesty, not something to celebrate.

Gawker was also getting away with using personal wealth as a way to defer justice. Gawker also buried people suing them with legal fees.

I agree we should move towards a costless or more efficient legal system, but in the meantime, the Hogan vs. Gawker lawsuit was a victory for the good guys.

Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

#26

Post by ng12 »

slowandlow wrote: post #23
tryingagainbro wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gawker (apparently) said that Thiel was gay. That's not defamation, it's a fact, so you can't sue.

So Gawker exercised free speech and he was allowed to tag along in an unrelated lawsuit. That sounds like a big loophole in the system. Say what you will about these "smut peddlers" like Gawker but that is an attack on free speech. I amazed more folks in the comments aren't upset about the constitution being perverted in such a way.

If it's a loophole they created it, with a big neon sign saying "please put us out of business".

Would it make you feel any better if Hogan never got his day in court because he didn't have the money? Gawker was using their warchest to avoid litigation for completely legitimate lawsuits -- no matter how you feel about Thiel they got what was coming to them.

Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

#28

Post by dtornabene »

nsnick wrote: post #6

How much damage has Peter Thiel done to free speech? This is what Peter Thiel will be remembered for.

sadly you're getting downvoted into gray, but I have a feeling you're wrong for a different reason, Thiel will be remembered for many deeply authoritarian things, one of which will be his assault on the journalism. Gawker was a flawed organization, but they were also doing a fair amount of journalism that no one else would, not the least of which was sexual harassment allegations against people like Louis C.K. that are only now seeing the light.

Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

#30

Post by jhayward »

slg wrote: post #21
civilian wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're asking a rhetorical question where the answer is in the affirmative. But I would actually like to know how much damage Peter Thiel has done to free speech. Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.

>Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended. Why do so many people ignore this fact? Yes, Thiel funded a lawsuit that bankrupted them. But he won that lawsuit because Gawker committed a crime. I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political causes. Either we agree that a third party is allowed to fund…

> because Gawker committed a crime

What criminal statute was Gawker convicted of breaking?

It would behoove everyone to understand the difference between civil and criminal law. A tort is not a crime. They were found to have caused injury to the reputation of a person. That is not a crime.

Post reply on HN