10 ms·
>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
by 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.
- RockyMcNuts 10y ago"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."
- eudox 10y agoDenton and the people in his employ have their right to free speech, and Hulk Hogan has the right to use the beautiful system of Anglosphere common law -- certainly the best legal system in the world -- to deal with Gawker's poison. (Goebbels and Stalin is a bit too hyperbolic, I think. Maybe try and scale it down -- say, Joe McCarthy.)
- TAForObvReasons 10y ago> Goebbels and Stalin is a bit too hyperbolic Parent was quoting Noam Chomsky
- ikeboy 10y ago>certainly the best legal system in the world Citation/argument needed
- RockyMcNuts 10y agoso...no objection to any billionaire with a grudge starting a secret trust fund for anyone to use to to sue you? I love liberty as much as the next guy, but libertarianism all too often seems to mean the liberty of the guy with money and power to mess with the little guy. Seems a little weird that a self-professed libertarian like Thiel aligns with Trump, noted authoritarian who's not above calling for violence against those who disagree with him, wants to go after Jeff Bezos and Amazon because he doesn't like what the Washington Post says, calls the CNN control room to tell them what to cover, while at the same time threatening to cancel CNN's 'FCC license' and take them off the air. Personally, if a boot is stomping on my face I'm not that concerned with whether it's a private boot or a public boot. I'm not cool with government telling the press what to print, and I'm not cool with large capital pools going on secret vendettas against media that doesn't do what they want, and making sure they get sued on any completely unrelated thing that comes up where they might be vulnerable.
- prostoalex 10y agoThis is an important point. With the court verdict as it stands Hulk Hogan was right and Gawker was wrong. The fact that it took a connection to a billionaire for someone to defend their right to privacy is a sorry state of justice in America.
- oh_sigh 10y agoIt could have easily been hundred millionaire
- abiox 10y agothis question seems rather loaded.
- tracker1 10y agoThey didn't stop them from publishing... But there are, can and should be repercussions for some things that one may publish. If it's news, it will circulate the likes of twitter/facebook regardless and be picked up by others.. that's how news works. Someone will always be the first. All of that said, there's also a consideration to be held for ethics and responsible disclosure in journalism. In this instance a legal case with merit was funded, I don't see a problem with that, necessarily.
- darawk 10y agoExactly what is unethical about his conduct here? I really don't understand what problem anyone has with this.
- gph 10y agoI don't think Thiel is being unethical and I think the decision in this case was valid. That said I do in general have a problem with all this. I mean what does it say about our justice system when a millionaire needs a billionaire to help seek justice for himself. Is that how it's going to be in the future? If you find yourself wronged by some massively wealthy or powerful entity you now have to find an equally massively wealthy or powerful entity to back you in seeking justice? We've all known money has far too much power in the legal system. But this just lays it out plain as day. How can anyone look at this and think, "Yea that's a good way of handling things".
- darawk 10y agoAh, in that sense I agree, yes. His help should not have been needed in the first place.
- __Joker 10y agoI really doubt whether any just society exists in today. Rich and powerful will always bend the rules. These days the rule ~breaking~ bending is more subtle than the previous. To quote Thucydides[1] "... right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." The challenge still exists for us to find a way to build more just and egalitarian societies. [1].http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0200:book=5:chapter=89:section=1 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:19...
- inflagranti 10y agoThere are airways always degrees. I cannot speak for other European countries, but in Switzerland, much less of the cost of the judicial system is on the individual. Also for minor the there are dedicated judges appointed to quickly resolve disputes without huge processes. And finally, there's insurance you can get that will pay a lawyer for you if you really get into some nasty situation ever, something I haven't found in the U.S. where it would actually make even more sense, given the litigation trigger happiness here.
- zardgiv 10y agoAs 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, which is why people are rightfully worried about a billionaire's personal vendetta to destroy a press organization?
- greatnorthz 10y agoIn the absence of a regulator, something needs to keep the 'press' in check.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y agoJust because they published things that have been good journalism allows them carte blanche to publish things that break the law and are morally reprehensible? I find this logic baffling.
- zardgiv 10y agoI was directly replying to the comment that "They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose." Actually reading the context would make the logic much less baffling.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y agoOkay, your argument then seems to be "They do have a moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose some of the time but the rest of the time they break the law". That's not much improvement, I would think.
- zardgiv 10y agoI don't feel like you're really trying to engage critically here.
- partiallypro 10y agoI 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.
- sinxoveretothex 10y agoDo 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?
- oh_sigh 10y agoFew people outside of 4chan proactively defend the happening, but many people were celebrating the leaking of the hulks sex tape
- MollyR 10y agoGawker 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.
- lazaroclapp 10y agoIsn't this the same argument that gets thrown around when people point out the long term precedent implications in having Apple write a backdoor for the FBI? "You are defending a murdering terrorist!" "No, I am standing for the security of our communications infrastructure and, by extension, our society" Now: "You are defending a criminal low-brow rag that cares nothing for violating someone's privacy in the name of profit!" "No, I am questioning whether we want people secretly funding punitive lawsuits for their own ends, regardless of merit. I also think I personally would be fine with it if you remove 'secretly'." Sometimes the means matter, even when you agree with the immediate ends. I respect Thiel a hell of a lot more than I respect Gawker, and yet I am not sure this is how we want to do things.
- leereeves 10y agoWe can defend the press' freedom to express any opinion or fact without allowing them to publish people's private sex tapes.
- Chris2048 10y agoYes, and furthermore it is up to Gawker to decide how to structure themselves. If they break the law under the same entity they do legitimate journalism, they are taking the risk.
- thesimpsons1022 10y agoWhat is the alternative? If you can't afford to sue a company rightfully you don't get to? What is wrong with paying someone's legal fees, regardless of your motives? Are you going to make transfers of money illegal? He could've lost the case in the court of law and lost his money.
- lazaroclapp 10y agoPerhaps not phrased well enough in my post, but as I said, my personal take is that - so long as the quality of access to justice can't be fully separated from wealth - third-party funding of lawsuits should be allowed, just not in secret. For an immediate fix: have parties disclose any third-parties funding their suits and any conflicts of interests they might have with the opposing side. Make the judge and jury aware of this and document it in the public proceedings of the suit.
- simula67 10y agoAlso don't forget that the incident involved publishing his racist rants which destroyed his career.
- kelukelugames 10y agoWait, who and what is this?
- disillusioned 10y agoThe sex tape itself was widely published on the internet, but most publications responded to Hogan's lawyer's C&Ds. Gawker did not, but more importantly, they separately published the fact that an audio tape exists in which Hogan made blatantly racist remarks about the person dating his daughter, which caused sponsors and others to pull away from him. (Though they didn't publish the tape itself, as others did, perhaps ironically.) This is what's considered to have caused the damage to his career, rather than the fact that he likes sleeping with his friend's wife.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- EdiX 10y agoIt didn't. His racist rant was published by the National Enquirer three years after Gawker leaked his sex tape.
- makomk 10y agoThat just makes Gawker look worse. The rant in question was part of the sex tape, but they didn't include it in the original article - it was published later by Gawker as a direct result of him suing them over the sex tape in question. It looked remarkably like retaliation for him suing them over their publication of the sex tape.
- rpgmaker 10y agoIf the news is about some asshole VC you know people here will find acceptable the most abhorrent shit. It's not ok for billionaires to sue to death the publications they don't like.