23 ms·
Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
- johansch 10y agoThis is commendable. Gawker is scum.
- zardgiv 10y agoHis stated goal, "deterrence," is the exact thing people talk about when they worry about a chilling effect. The fact that people are applauding because it's someone they disagree with whose ox is getting gored is really disappointing for a community that espouses such strong freedom of speech principles.
- pkinsky 10y agoGawker posted revenge porn, not leaked memos proving the CIA created crack. I don't see this as a particularly slippery slope.
- nicobn 10y agoFreedom of speech does not imply freedom of consequences from speech.
- zardgiv 10y agoI must admit, it is funny seeing the inversion on this from the usual free speech absolutists :)
- pkinsky 10y agoI do enjoy watching people quote one of Gawker's favorite lines back at them.
- zardgiv 10y agoLike 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.
- abiox 10y agoi'm curious, what are you meaning by "freedom of speech"? in what way does releasing sex tapes constitute this?
- ryanlol 10y agoI 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.
- zardgiv 10y agoTwo 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.
- ryanlol 10y ago>First, Peter Thiel used the court system, an arm of the government, to pursue a personal vendetta and suppress their speech. No, he merely helped others do so. Whether or not he had a personal vendetta does not affect the validity of the cases. And again, Peter Thiel has every right to do so. As he himself isn't an arm of the government. >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 just can't find a definition that agrees with you here, it seems to me that it's commonly accepted that freedom of speech is specifically about the right to communicate without fear of government interference. It'd be rather ridiculous if wasn't, would any retaliation from a private person in response to speech be violating ones freedom of speech? Wouldn't that mean that if you insulted me and I responded in kind I'd effectively be suppressing your speech? In any case, I'd appreciate it if you could find a source that supports your position. I'd be very interested to read it.
- int_19h 10y agoThere's a difference between freedom of speech, and freedom to violate privacy of others. I don't have any problem with deterrence - or "chilling effect", if you prefer to word it that way - on the latter. It's unfortunate that it requires a millionaire to fund the court case to get us there; but the only cause for concern here is that someone else might see their privacy similarly violated, and not have a rich sponsor to pay the legal bills for personal reasons.
- uola 10y ago"There's a difference between freedom of speech, and freedom to violate privacy of others." I think that is a very dangerous way to look at thing. The right to privacy is a limitation to freedom of speech. You might think that it's a reasonable limitation in this case, but it's still a limitation and not something different.
- int_19h 10y agoSure, it is a limitation on freedom of speech. Copyright is also a limitation to freedom of speech, as are libel and slander laws. In a society where free speech is absolute, if I have more money than you, I can destroy your reputation, and possibly your entire life, by spreading false information about you, and you would have no recourse. Is that a good thing?
- siddboots 10y agoIf the intended deterrent is simply the cost defending or settling, then you are right, it is no different to a SLAPP suit. However, our legal system holds that even where we have freedom of expression, we still have a responsibility to not invade people's privacy, and not cause them emotional harm. A court found that Gawker didn't act according to those responsibilities, so they owed damages. That's exactly the kind of deterrence that our civil law is designed to provide.
- zardgiv 10y agoFrom the article, the reason we know that Thiel was funding this in the first place: "[...] an unusual decision Mr. Bollea’s legal team made: It purposely excluded a claim that would have allowed Gawker’s insurance company to help pay for its defense as well as damages." That speaks quite loudly to the intent of the deterrent, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned who was paying, since insurance company money is just as green as Gawker's.
- flashman 10y agoGood; there SHOULD be a chilling effect on publishing private material of the sort being litigated. There's a difference between 'what the public is interested in' and 'the public interest'.
- mikeyouse 10y agoSo if it were a Donald Trump sex tape rather than a hulk Hogan one, should airing under a minute of it cost the NYTimes $150M?
- sanxiyn 10y agoYes.
- mikeyouse 10y agoThat is a terrifying mentality. Should Romney have been able to sue about his 47% comments? Why is everyone so content to march into fascism?
- ryanlol 10y agoHow is that supposed to be at all comparable? Publishing a sex tape is completely different than writing about it.
- robbiemitchell 10y agoRomney could sue, but he would lose. You can sue any time you want. That's how the US legal system works.
- EdiX 10y agoYes? Unless there was something newsworthy...
- nemothekid 10y agoOnly if NYT was issued a legitimate takedown, and then NYT told Trump to fuck off.
- pkinsky 10y ago>He added: “It’s not for me to decide what happens to Gawker. If America rallies around Gawker and decides we want more people to be outed and more sex tapes to be posted without consent, then they will find a way to save Gawker, and I can’t stop it.” An important reminder of exactly what conduct, on Gawker's part, people are defending. They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose. They're scum, and it's pure karma that they're being destroyed by someone they outed.
- zorpner 10y agoAn 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.
- pkinsky 10y agoAll I see are slippery slope arguments claiming that, next time, Thiel might go after someone who didn't unarguably deserve it.
- madeofpalk 10y agoWhy do you think the wealthy should be able to stop the free press from publishing things they don't like?
- pkinsky 10y agoFreedom from speech isn't freedom from consequences. Gawker can publish what they like, and when they break laws against revenge porn they can be sued.
- eudox 10y ago"The free press" is rather a grandiose title for a rag like Gawker. If Gawker counts as part of "the free press" -- the people Americans trust with the privilege of mediating their access to much information -- then yes, "the press" deserves whatever it gets.
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoIn case anyone from the NY Times online is reading this, they have a bug in their super fancy navigation UI: Left or right click drag opens a new story. This would be fine, except if you want to select text it de-facto opens a new story.
- mrep 10y agoBad policy. If you don't like what they are doing based on moral grounds, then use your money and influence to educate people on why what they are doing is bad. That has a better chance of stomping out this problem for good. Taking a vendetta like this by trying to sue them out of business is just playing whack a mole. Another company will rise out of their ashes.
- MichaelBurge 10y agoYou might as well be educating Russian malware spammers on why emailing people phishing scams and keyloggers is wrong. We could get some ethics professors to write a monograph on the subject; maybe that would enlighten them.
- MBCook 10y agoCrud. Sorry for the accidental down vote.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoThere's always a bigger fish.
- nefitty 10y agoThiel claims to despise "massive privacy violations" on the part of groups like Gawker, yet he was one of the co-founders of Palantir. These people are just narcissists who want revenge for someone splashing mud on their boots. They're not fighting for our privacy, or for the common good. Sorry buddy, you are worth more than 99.999% of us. That makes you a significant figure and thus newsworthy. Your sexual orientation gives people some insight into whether you would support a certain political party, activists groups, etc. I'm just astonished at the tone deafness of this guy's comments.
- cissou 10y agoI might be interpreting your words, but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy?
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago> but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy? Well not in the strawman form of 'give up on privacy' - but yes, if the information may be of public interest (I definitely don't think that sex-tapes are fyi) - than the legal standards are different.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- c3534l 10y agoDoing a little googling, it looks like Palantir is a somewhat suspicious cyber-spying company implicated in a number of dragnet espionage programs. For instance, China's espionage program used, in part, for political oppression in Tibet. It also looks like he distanced himself from an effort to use his software to try to take down Wikileaks. I'm not entirely sure what sorts of things Palantir really does and if I'd consider them ethical or anti-privacy, but it does seem like a point of concern and probably what the person above you was referencing.
- danso 10y agoI can't speak for the other commenter or for other countries, but in the U.S., being "extremely wealthy", to the point where you've become a public figure, changes the standard of privacy and slander in the eyes of the court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan > New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a "public figure", prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such cases—but only when they involve public figures—rarely prevail. As it's taught in journalism schools, this precedent is seen as the major driver of American press freedom.
- madeofpalk 10y agoJosh 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 super rich, few publications will have the resources or the death wish to scrutinize them closely. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/05/25/marshall-thiel http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/05/25/marshall-thiel http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-huge-deal http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-huge-deal
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago> But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, Is there some method of 'destruction' that isn't reported on here, other than Peter Thiel financing Hulk Hogan's lawsuit? I think you are going to be hard-pressed to find people that think Gawker should be able to publish a 'sex tape', ignore a court order to take it down, because it's 'journalism'.
- zardgiv 10y agoThey specifically dropped the part of the case that would allow an insurance payout. Typically, people who don't want to destroy an organization will prefer to get the more assured money from insurance.
- saint_fiasco 10y agoShould Gawker be able to publish a 'sex tape', ignore a court order to take it down, then pay a slightly higher insurance premium which to them is just 'cost of doing business' at this point, just because they are 'journalists'?
- zardgiv 10y agoI don't know, should they? What if they had a billionaire secretly funding them ;-)
- perseusprime11 10y agoNothing new here. People with power, money and influence can do shady things. Facebook with trending news, Peter Theil with funding suit against Gawker...they are all the same.
- cwisecarver 10y agoThis is what I sent to my wife about this story earlier today. I think it's true for the public too. "I guess people can do whatever they want with their money. For me the bottom line is that Hogan is a public figure and the definition of “newsworthy” isn’t up to anyone other than media to decide on. Sure, it’s tacky as fuck to report on him fucking his best friends wife and it isn’t any of anyone’s business but the market can decide if gawker should be in business or not. It shouldn’t be able to decide what they are or are not allowed to report so long as they’re true." It's creepy that the billionaires can fund lawsuits against the media because they wrote something that the billionaire didn't like but that's a free market. I don't think anyone that reads Jezebel or gawker or valleywag is going to stop reading it because Nick Denton publishing something about an ex-pro wrestler fucking a dj's wife. That's their market. The people decided this verdict was just. I think it's ridiculous but then again Trump is probably running against Clinton for the leader of the free world so you get what you get.
- Artistry121 10y agoMoney in law is a major issue - but I don't see how this is a problem as much. I think it's a good thing that those who have earned money can use it to attempt to change the world - and Gawker did a jerk thing.
- bzbarsky 10y agoThere is a big difference, in most people's perception, between "report on him fucking his best friends wife" and "publish video of him fucking his best friend's wife". The former happens all the time for public figures and no one bats an eye.
- marcoperaza 10y agoThe specific facts of this case are pretty damning for Gawker. They were openly contemptuous of a court order to take down the video. They deserve this.
- mhaymo 10y agoThe market cannot decide that invading an individual's privacy for their entertainment is ok. The negative externality there is massive.
- dvhh 10y agoI am very very conflicted about this, do we classify Gawker network as blogs or journalism ?
- owenversteeg 10y agoI 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 investment from them. Say what you will about the publishing of the tape (and I for one think it was a despicable action) it certainly showed Gawker's true editorial strength. They could do whatever the hell they wanted, publishing for the editorial integrity rather than to get pageviews. The idea of every single large online media outlet being at least partially owned by a small group of media companies owned by billionaires is horrifying. BuzzFeed has a great and fascinating new editorial unit, but they have 200 million reasons not to publish anything that goes against the mainstream media. Gawker is a horrible company, but I'm going to miss them. [edit] Wow, this is really being run into the ground with downvotes. If you disagree, please don't hesitate to let me know why, as I'm genuinely curious. My email's in my profile if you'd prefer to contact me there. Cheers!
- tlrobinson 10y agoWell, you could say Gawker also got "owned by a billionaire"...
- rpgmaker 10y agoHN is filled with people that immediately side with scumbag VCs.
- dang 10y agoActually there are many more, probably an order of magnitude more, who immediately side against VCs. Such reflexes make for poor discussion regardless of which way the leading bit is flipped.
- mhaymo 10y agoAre you implying that Gawker's actions in this case were a twisted form of "editorial integrity", and not page-view-seeking? That is hard for me to believe.
- android521 10y agoWhy did Peter Thiel supports Trump? It is unimaginable.
- greatnorthz 10y agoTrump has support in a lot of places that you wouldn't expect, few will admit supporting him in public because they get responses like it is 'unimaginable'. Thiel has the money/power so there's nothing for him to fear.
- testrun 10y agoand he really does not care
- yAnonymous 10y ago>It is unimaginable. Not when the alternative is Hillary Clinton.
- nikcub 10y agoThiel is also apparently financing Shiva Ayyadurai's lawsuit against Gawker. He is the guy who claims to have invented email as a 14 year old. Both Techdirt[1] and Gawker[2] wrote about his nonsense claims, but Shiva and Thiel are suing Gawker. The sex tape is a little more black and white as a moral argument, but i'd love to hear justifications for defending a man who is clearly so full of shit in a case that with Thiel's support he'll likely win. [0] http://fortune.com/2016/05/12/gawker-lawsuit-shiva-ayyadurai/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/12/gawker-lawsuit-shiva-ayyadurai... [1] https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=shiva+ayyadurai https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=shiva+ayyadurai [2] http://gizmodo.com/5888702/corruption-lies-and-death-threats-the-crazy-story-of-the-man-who-pretended-to-invent-email http://gizmodo.com/5888702/corruption-lies-and-death-threats...
- partiallypro 10y agoProbably because Theil wants Gawker dead after they were the outlet that outed him as homosexual. I wouldn't necessarily blame him. Just tying the publication up in court and legal fees could sink it.
- FireBeyond 10y agoWhich is the very definition of a chilling effect, however shitty Gawker's original activities were. Best hope we don't piss off a m/billionaire who seeks to see us destroyed.
- brianmcconnell 10y agoGawker didn't out Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel outed Peter Thiel. It was the worst kept secret in San Francisco, and he had a public Friendster profile that made it pretty clear he was GAY GAY GAY.
- ikeboy 10y agoSource? http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/25/media/peter-thiel-gawker-hulk-hogan/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/25/media/peter-thiel-gawker-hul... 'Ayyadurai told CNNMoney that Thiel has "zero involvement in my case."'
- 10y ago
- andywood 10y agoIt's really no use criticizing some random individual for using their money to buy something that's for sale. If you don't want a thing to be bought, you have to find some way to make it not for sale.
- VonGuard 10y agoAs someone who wrote for Denton, I'm shocked to learn how much $ Gawker was making. He paid writers as little as $5 a post.
- emblem21 10y agoTIL people think Gawker Media Group Inc, a Cayman Islands corporation, is entitled to First Amendment protections under United States law.
- billhendricksjr 10y agoIs it wrong for me to be amused at how much I dislike all parties involved in this story?
- Jugurtha 10y agoBeyond good and evil and morals, I think Thiel is being really gentlemanly about this. How hard would it have been to get very good looking people to seduce the people responsible (or their spouses, offsprings, parents), have some wild stuff going on, get that on video, and publish that online... Would Gawker still feel as strongly about freedom of expression when their significant other's or their daughters'/sons'/parents' legs are spread all over the internet? If that video was sent to them, would they publish something like "Watch the sextape of the people who pulblished Hogan's sextape", I can think of many, many ways Thiel could have harmed them. He's a very smart man and I'm sure he could think of many more, but he held back going at it in a civilized manner only legally backing a law-suit.
- fromthemorning 10y agoIs there anyone who thinks Thiel isn't a jackass? Seriously, I want to see the other side of this, provided ofc there is one.
- TaylorGood 10y agoThat's about as strong of a maneuver as it gets on Peter's part. To devise such a plot, bravo.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- internaut 10y agoThe only thing that should be upsetting about this outcome is that it wouldn't have happened without clandestine backing by a billionaire. The execution of justice is not in a healthy state. Arguably Gawker would have not necessitated an intervention had the justice system been less broken. The honest reason why some people are bellyaching about this is because they don't see Thiel/Hogan/Trump as members of their own political tribe. The rationales they come up with are retroactive justifications because they feel that they've taken a hit. Part of their political tribe - Gawker, lost out. Political tribe affiliation wins out over pragmaticism and logic. We all know very well that Gawker was a nest of Social Justice political advocates. They ought to ask themselves if Thiel wasn't a Trump Delegate, was not wealthy but managed to accomplish the same thing, would they still have a problem with this. I am certain the answer is no. The only change I would have made personally is that I would have stayed clandestine but then again I'm not as familiar with SV's political context. I am much much more disturbed by the funding activities of George Soros than Peter Thiel. Abuse of power by the rich can be a genuine problem, but this wasn't an example of that. It is time to play The Warrior Song! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xo3fwddONA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xo3fwddONA Kill with a heart like Arctic Ice!
- bobm_kite9 10y agoFinally. Amazing that I had to read through miles and miles of comments siding with either Thiel or Gawker to get to the real problem: Why is it that an (already a millionaire) entertainer _needs_ to get a billionaire on his side just to try and get justice done? This is a totally crazy state-of-affairs.
- soundwave106 10y agoAlthough Thiel was involved, I'm not sure it's clear just how much his financing mattered. I do agree with you that there's too much "money=justice" in the United States though. Part of the problem with this case I think is less politics, it is the people involved. I do not have high opinions of Hulk Hogan, and there's a certain irony that this case also round-about involves Bubba the Love Sponge, a radio shock jock that from my viewpoint is about as scummy and ethic-less as Gawker in his career. What Gawker did was scummy though, and I have no problems with the outcome.
- agd 10y agoI think the thing to be clear about it that this is not some high and mighty ethical challenge to Gawker or in defence of privacy (cough cough Palentir). This is petty revenge writ large by a billionaire. If it was about principle why was he hiding his actions? This interview is a pure PR exercise because his involvement was revealed. The whole story is a sorry mess.
- whatok 10y agoThought experiment. Let's suppose I was previously the victim of police brutality. Later on in life, I became a billionaire and decided I wanted to do something with my money. I decide to fund every lawsuit in the country against all police departments. Is this okay?
- kyrre 10y agoyes. what peter thiel is doing is both OK and commendable
- internaut 10y agoProviding for the lawsuits to be based on credible grounds, then absolutely yes. We want strong law enforcement based on appropriate use of force and judges that can intelligently apply discretion. With humans that is about as much as you can hope for. There exists grey areas but policemen who decide to strike by not intervening when they could prevent violence are not the right of people we needed in the first instance. In fact that would be a double win because we would be selecting for the police officers with better intuitions.
- wfo 10y agoMore's to the point. Let's say I apply for a job early in my career and a hiring manager doesn't give it to me. Then later in life I'm a billionaire and I want revenge. It becomes known publicly that I want to destroy him and his company so very badly, that I will fund any lawsuit against him or them. I fund lawsuit after lawsuit until the company is destroyed and he is bankrupted and ruined, his family and life in shambles. Is that okay?
- Overtonwindow 10y agoI support this 100%. Just because someone calls themselves, or could ever be claimed as, journalists, does not automatically give them a pass in ruining peoples lives by creating sensationalist stories which has the only purpose of drawing increased web traffic. Gawker should be taken to task over its behavior and I hope they are forced out of business.
- hysan 10y agoI 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 be sincere and express my disbelief. I really want to hear a well thought out answer cause I really want to understand the situation and why people just keep repeating that Thiel is being unethical.
- drabiega 10y ago> Is that how the legal system works in America? Money wins? It certainly appears so, yes.
- robbiemitchell 10y ago> Is that how the legal system works in America? Money wins? Ask any small company dealing with a giant patent troll.
- Karunamon 10y agoExcept 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.
- robbiemitchell 10y agoThat's true, but it doesn't counter the point.
- cjbprime 10y agoThis 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.
- james1071 10y agoI really don't see what the problem is. What does it matter who funded his legal case?
- jondubois 10y agoIt's quite bourgeois of Peter Thiel to concern himself with such petty things. He should focus his ego, his money and his attention on more important matters. Nobody really cares about him and his famous friends being offended by Gawker - In fact, quite a lot of people enjoy reading that crap. Since when is Mr Thiel's emotional comfort more important than the people's right to information (albeit gossip)? If I could be as wealthy as Peter Thiel, I wouldn't give a damn about what the media wrote about me. Maybe I would just quietly cry myself to sleep in my gold-plated bed inside my luxurious NYC penthouse.
- jgalt212 10y agoPeter Thiel is snake because he took these actions in actions in secret. If he had been open from the start, then I may have a different opinion of him.
- ninv 10y agoMy takeaway from this whole story, We can't get justice without lot of money. Which is sad. Hogan/Bollea should be able to fight his case without Mr. Thiel's financial support.
- brianmcconnell 10y agoTwo important points here. #1 Gawker did not out Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel outed Peter Thiel. Back when Friendster was a thing he had a public profile which featured him shirtless on a boat which clearly advertised his interest in handsome men. So on the scale from Closet Queen to Totes Obvious, he was more on the side of totes obvi. It was also the worst kept secret in San Francisco, particularly if you had any latin friends. So Owen Thomas was right in concluding that Thiel was already out when he ran his "Peter Thiel is totally gay" piece because it wasn't news to anybody. #2 if Hulk Hogan is claiming injury and embarrassment from a sex tape, why did he make a sex tape? Yes, Gawker is muck raking trash (I just read it for the comments!), but they trade in such material. Unless I am missing something, Gawker didn't trick him into making a sex tape. Common sense would tell you that if you don't want your sex tape on the Internets, don't make a sex tape in the first place.
- michaelwww 10y ago> #2 if Hulk Hogan is claiming injury and embarrassment from a sex tape, why did he make a sex tape? Hulk Hogan said he did not know the tape was being made so could not consent to it. He was not consulted about it's release and would not have authorized it. The jury agreed with him.
- brianmcconnell 10y agoThen why isn't he suing his "friend" who made the sex tape without his consent? That's the original sin then. I am answering my own question here (Gawker has more money than his friend!)
- detaro 10y agoThe "friend" settled out of court. As far as I know the matter how the tape got to Gawker then wasn't resolved in the case.
- tsycho 10y agoI am conflicted about this, and see merits on both sides of the argument on Thiel's actions. So I tried to draw an analogy: Let's say that there is some patent troll that only extorts money from small startups, who don't have the resources to fight back. Some billionaire of today, who in his past career was harassed by this patent troll, decides (both for revenge and for the greater good in his opinion) that the patent troll should die and secretly starts backing startup lawsuits against the troll. 1/ Is this a fair analogy? 2/ Is the press "special" and hence we cannot use analogies from other industries? 3/ People who disagree with Thiel's actions, would you feel similarly against the billionaire above?
- chipotle_coyote 10y ago1) Not precisely. Suppose the "patent troll" in your example was a company that had some absurd, dubious patents and made a sizable chunk of their revenue from them, but was not a non-practicing entity, and actually produced other products that people generally liked. Beyond that, that they could prove that they licensed a lot of their patents--both valid and dubious--pretty reasonably. (In other words, assume things are more complex than "Everything Gawker Media produces is clearly indefensible.") 2) You can always use analogies from other industries, but you can also make a case that in the United States the press is something of a special case. It's the only private industry specifically given constitutional protection in the Bill of Rights. It's certainly worth asking--and potentially litigating--whether Gawker violated both Thiel's and Hogan's right to privacy, but we give the press more latitude than we do other industries for a reason. 3) In the example as you outlined it, where a "patent troll only extorts money from small startups," I wouldn't feel the same despite disagreeing with Thiel's actions in this case. The difference, beyond what I've suggested above in (1) and (2), is one of precedence. People are focusing, understandably, on the specifics of this particular case. But we don't know wat other cases Thiel is funding against Gawker; we don't know what the merits are. And that's the whole thing: a billionaire unhappy with the way a media outlet has covered him doesn't need to find winnable libel and defamation suits against that outlet; he just needs to find ones good enough to get to trial and cost tens of millions of dollars to defend. If Thiel funded a half-dozen losing cases against Gawker, he might still bankrupt them. And, again: precedent. What if instead of Peter Thiel this was Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton? George Soros? David Koch? What if the ultimate reason for the vendetta was because they brought out embarrassing secrets that were in the public interest? While I understand why everyone is focusing on the "Gawker? Couldn't happen to a more deserving company, ha ha ha" aspect of all this, free speech cases don't always revolve around noble defenders with noble goals. As wary as I am of slippery slope arguments (use one once and you'll use them everywhere), "hey, this couldn't possibly happen to someone who's less of a jerk than Nick Denton" seems uncomfortably close to magic thinking.
- 627467 10y agoSeems likes the impression of a self-righteous, wealthy industrialist who is trying to shutdown speech he dislikes. I mean, if you're pulling a gilded-age industrialist stunt at least go out and build your own media outlet. Keep speech plural. No, I don't feel like I need to justify whether I read Gawker or not; or whether I agree with Gawker as a publication or not. If you don't like one article go and take it down if you got legal standing. Why go nuclear? PS. I know little about P. Thiel and his political and social stances. The impression I got of him are from headlines like: "Billionaire investor Peter Thiel's plan to pay college students to drop out..." and "Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia". And now "Billionaire Peter Thiel funded Hulk Hogan lawsuit to take down Gawker"... Is there a decent biography out there worth reading?
- tryitnow 10y agoDoes anybody know why Gawker thought it was such a great idea to publish the tape? And not just to publish but to keep it up despite warnings from authorities? Is this something that is normal among tabloid outfits? I have no idea because I really don't follow tabloids.
- perseusprime11 10y agoThe only safe way for Theil to come out of this is for him to double down and setup a legal defense fund for all the innocent people who get harassed by Gawkers of the world.
- vonnik 10y agoThiel's multiple cases against Gawker are a death knell for American journalism. To be clear, I don't like Gawker's approach to journalism, and I disagree with their decision to out Thiel and expose Hogan. If Gawker goes under, the world will not be a poorer place. But the PRECEDENT that Thiel is setting is deeply disturbing, and it will hurt US democracy. When any billionaire can sue any publication into bankruptcy anonymously over any story they ever wrote, all publications will eventually belong to another oligarch, because that is the only way they'll survive. And the stories that publications write are a reflection of their owners, which means the oligarchs will exert even more influence on the American mind than they already do. This will cast a chill on independent journalism, and limit the voices that we read. Thiel is right as an individual case, and horrible if you go one layer of abstraction above that.