9 ms·

An 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 a

by zorpner 10y ago

An 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 ago
All I see are slippery slope arguments claiming that, next time, Thiel might go after someone who didn't unarguably deserve it.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  Why do you think the wealthy should be able to stop the free press from publishing things they don't like?
  - pkinsky 10y ago
    Freedom 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 ago
        Denton 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 ago
        so...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.
      - ElComradio 10y ago
        Gawker is not liable for publishing a story about Hogan's sex tape. They are liable for publishing the actual explicit sex tape without his consent.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Unpopular and distasteful speech is the entire purpose of press freedom and free speech. Keep in mind that while many people would agree with you that Gawker is scum, various communities take offense and find tasteless all sorts of other things. Freedom is either near absolute or useless.
      - eudox 10y ago
        I keep that in mind. And this court decision was not made on the basis of how repugnant, malicious or vicious Gawker or Nick Denton are. If Gawker goes bankrupt, it won't be because they're horrible people, it will be because they overstepped the bounds of the law.
        zorpner 10y ago
        No, it will be because a plutocrat decided to fund a lawsuit unrelated to his reason for disliking them (and apparently influenced the process of that lawsuit with the aim of destroying Gawker to the detriment of Bollea), and abused the inherent bias of our courts towards parties with disproportionate resources. Bollea may well have had a valid case against Gawker, but we'll never know. The idea that a case with a side funded by a vengeful billionaire could be fairly decided in our court system is absurd.
        eudox 10y ago
        Dude, my dude, Thiel just paid for part of Hogan's legal fees. That money's not gonna conjure up evidence from the luminiferous aether.
        FireBeyond 10y ago
        The issue is that Bollea dropped a part of the lawsuit that would have allowed the award to be paid out by the insurer - that reduces both the likelihood and amount of money that Bollea will receive, on the face of it, acting in a manner contrary to his own best interest, and in Thiel, lawsuit financier's, stated interests.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    This 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 ago
      It could have easily been hundred millionaire
  - abiox 10y ago
    this question seems rather loaded.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    They 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 ago
Exactly what is unethical about his conduct here? I really don't understand what problem anyone has with this.
- gph 10y ago
  I 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 ago
    Ah, in that sense I agree, yes. His help should not have been needed in the first place.
  - __Joker 10y ago
    I 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 ago
      There 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.

by zorpner 10y ago

pkinsky 10y ago

All I see are slippery slope arguments claiming that, next time, Thiel might go after someone who didn't unarguably deserve it.

madeofpalk 10y ago
Why do you think the wealthy should be able to stop the free press from publishing things they don't like?
- pkinsky 10y ago
  Freedom 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 ago
      Denton 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 ago
        so...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.
    - ElComradio 10y ago
      Gawker is not liable for publishing a story about Hogan's sex tape. They are liable for publishing the actual explicit sex tape without his consent.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Unpopular and distasteful speech is the entire purpose of press freedom and free speech. Keep in mind that while many people would agree with you that Gawker is scum, various communities take offense and find tasteless all sorts of other things. Freedom is either near absolute or useless.
    - eudox 10y ago
      I keep that in mind. And this court decision was not made on the basis of how repugnant, malicious or vicious Gawker or Nick Denton are. If Gawker goes bankrupt, it won't be because they're horrible people, it will be because they overstepped the bounds of the law.
      - zorpner 10y ago
        No, it will be because a plutocrat decided to fund a lawsuit unrelated to his reason for disliking them (and apparently influenced the process of that lawsuit with the aim of destroying Gawker to the detriment of Bollea), and abused the inherent bias of our courts towards parties with disproportionate resources. Bollea may well have had a valid case against Gawker, but we'll never know. The idea that a case with a side funded by a vengeful billionaire could be fairly decided in our court system is absurd.
        eudox 10y ago
        Dude, my dude, Thiel just paid for part of Hogan's legal fees. That money's not gonna conjure up evidence from the luminiferous aether.
        FireBeyond 10y ago
        The issue is that Bollea dropped a part of the lawsuit that would have allowed the award to be paid out by the insurer - that reduces both the likelihood and amount of money that Bollea will receive, on the face of it, acting in a manner contrary to his own best interest, and in Thiel, lawsuit financier's, stated interests.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  This 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 ago
    It could have easily been hundred millionaire
- abiox 10y ago
  this question seems rather loaded.
- tracker1 10y ago
  They 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 ago

Exactly what is unethical about his conduct here? I really don't understand what problem anyone has with this.

gph 10y ago
I 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 ago
  Ah, in that sense I agree, yes. His help should not have been needed in the first place.
- __Joker 10y ago
  I 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 ago
    There 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.