10 ms·

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

by darawk 10y ago

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.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      The US also has a small claims court, every country does. The problems is that people have very skewed view of the US legal system mainly because of big cases that are sensationalized by them media. Most law suits in the US don't end up as multi-million dollar cases.
- internaut 10y ago
  > what does it say about our justice system when a millionaire needs a billionaire to help seek justice > "Yea that's a good way of handling things" That's my view in a nutshell. Despite our reputation as supposed money grubbers perpetually on the side of Big Business I've yet to meet any libertarian who thinks the poor are less deserving of justice, or as we say here: 'a fair shake'. The thing is a codebase overflowing with cruft.
- Artistry121 10y ago
  It was given that Thiel works in the same system. Donate to the ACLU if you want things to change but don't blame a good thing for being done. Hopefully this will lessen the likelyhood of lawsuits needed to be brought in the future.
djrobstep 10y ago
A libertarian using the power of government to crush free speech is pretty hypocritical if not unethical.
- leroy_masochist 10y ago
  Being able to use the courts to sue for defamation is pretty widely accepted as legit by most if not all strains of libertarianism. It's actually a clear example of a valid case in which governmental authority is necessary.
  - djrobstep 10y ago
    Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny."
    - darawk 10y ago
      Either way, his position is not hypocritical.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      That's right-wing libertarianism. Libertarianism was first formulated by a French anarcho-communist named Joseph Déjacque in the late 1800's, who lambasted Proudhon (of "property is theft" fame) for not being sufficiently focused on liberty. Right-libertarianism on the other hand was basically an attempt at reformulating the theories of Ayn Rand and von Mises to something that would allow a common from on many issues with liberal groups on the left.
  - kedean 10y ago
    It is, but that's not what Thiel is trying to do. He is backing an unrelated lawsuit in an effort to squash them. The action that he had a problem with, them outing him, is in no way illegal, so he got into a proxy war against them. That is unquestionably unethical. The ethical thing for him to do would be to come at them head on in the public arena.
FireBeyond 10y ago
I wonder whether Hogan/Bollea was advised by "his" counsel about the ramifications of dropping one of the pieces of litigation - a piece that would have increased the ability for Bollea to collect that damage award. As it happens the particular tort that was dropped was the only one that would allow Gawker to use their insurance to cover the liability of the verdict awarded. Thiel's goal is to destroy Gawker. A Gawker that is less able to pay out a verdict (because the verdict was $100M, but Gawker's revenue is only around $40M/yr) is going to go bankrupt, versus potentially staying in business if their insurer pays out. What's Bollea's goal? To destroy Gawker? Or achieve recompense? Or indeed both? Given that the counsel used by Bollea in this case is the same lawyer/law firm that Thiel is also channeling significant other money - and clients - to, for exactly the same thing, how clear is it exactly who the firm's client _really_ is - Bollea, or Thiel? And if Bollea and Thiel's goals are not the same (because as Thiel says, Bollea couldn't afford to do this himself), whose is going to take priority? Was Bollea briefed on the consequences of dropping this part of the suit (thus risking the ability for him to be paid/paid as much)? If so, was he okay with it? Is he expecting external compensation? Do the lawyers have a conflict of interest here? Is Bollea a knowledgeable/willing partner, or a semi or wholly uninformed pawn? However reprehensible Gawker is in this, there absolutely a wide crevice where there are perfectly valid ethical questions about Thiel's involvement and motivations in this whole debacle.
- 2chen 10y ago
  You still haven't made a case that Thiel's actions are unethical.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    At no point have I said that Thiel acted unethically, either. I think it's natural, and valid, to ask questions, or discuss why someone might act in a way that on the surface appears deleterious to their own interests, particularly when there is someone behind the curtains who does have a different, or tangential interest.
- will_brown 10y ago
  >...there are perfectly valid ethical questions about Thiel's involvement and motivations in this whole debacle. Your post basically reads like a law school ethics question/answer. You did a great job issue spotting. Law being one of the most highly regulated industries there are rules on point, so I can answer some of your questions. Here is how the Florida Rule of Professional Conduct reads "Rule 4-5.4(d): Exercise of Independent Professional Judgment. A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services." In other words, under the rules Bollea is the Client. As such has full decision making power with the attorney-client relationship. Not only would funny business result in the disbarment of the lawyer, there are also a lot of practicalities to law that prevent the undue influence on the lawyer. For example if Bollea wants to settle its not like Thiel could direct the firm to trial for a chance at a bigger judgment over Bollea's wishes, there would be record and it would be grounds for a malpractice claim and disbarment. Lawyer's can't even withhold settlement offers from clients, without there being a record, and again grounds for malpractice and disbarment. Your issue about dropping the claim against the interest of Bollea's ability to collect is interesting, but again if it can be shown Bollea suffered damage (lost ability to collect full judgment through insurance) because the lawyers breached their duty to the client that is grounds for malpractice.
andkon 10y ago
A rich person acted out his retributive fantasies by paying a law team for years to trawl through everything Gawker put out in search of litigable offenses. That's unethical on the part of the lawyers, probably, and on the part of Thiel, certainly. He never had a chance to win any personal verdict, so he went nuclear. There's no way that won't have a chilling effect on other media companies who consider whether or not to cover the stupid shit that rich people do. And it was cheap for him - around $10mm to bankrupt his mortal enemy. There's no way that other rich folks aren't going to do it as well, especially now that he's framing it as a philanthropic act.
- ElComradio 10y ago
  You make him sound like someone who is filing frivolous lawsuits. The Hogan case involves an outrageous invasion of privacy of extremely dubious newsworthiness, nothing at all like, say, outing a lesbian congresswoman who supports traditional marriage legislation. He's not going through looking for possible gotchas; these cases are pretty clear cut.
  - andkon 10y ago
    He didn't file a frivolous lawsuit. He decided to not file a frivolous lawsuit, and instead to fund every viable lawsuit he could purely so he could bankrupt a media company that had covered him very unfavourably in the past. He'll probably keep doing it, if more such cases pop up. He isn't on Hulk Hogan's side. He's on his side, and he won. Making this about the particulars of Hogan's case is deliberately eliding the fact that Thiel didn't give a shit about Hogan's case other than that it could bankrupt Gawker.
    - ElComradio 10y ago
      If in fact there are other viable cases, in the absence of Thiel the injustice would then be that Gawker can behave badly indefinitely because most of the victims will not pay the necessary amount to litigate.
- bogomipz 10y ago
r0h1n 10y ago
It's unethical because (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge, (b) he appears to be behind the decision to drop a certain charge from the lawsuit only so that Gawker wouldn't have insurance cover - it shows vindictiveness, (c) Thiel's goal seems to be to bankrupt and shut down Gawker. Most of all, if this was indeed above board and ethical, why did Thiel feel the need to do this surreptitiously until outed by the NYT (is he going to fund someone to sue them too?).
- cjbprime 10y ago
  > (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge That would be unethical if the case were frivolous, or designed to bankrupt Gawker through "court fees" defending themselves against unreasonable complaints, or so on. Gawker's going bankrupt, if they do, because they lost the case, for what I think were correct reasons. It can not be unethical to help someone get justice they were owed. If there are more cases like this one, I hope the plaintiffs win those cases too.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Would Gawker go bankrupt if the damages were set at $10 million? What about $20 million? $100 million? Why not $1 billion. Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair? Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would you keep true to your word that you hope more cases like this happen and that the plaintiffs win those cases too?
    - MisterBastahrd 10y ago
      Wealthy people tend to have a lot of income. He lost a lot of income due to Gawker. Yes, it's just and fair. Bollea was making millions and millions a year in roles and endorsements, and that dried up after Gawker went after him. Gawker makes millions too. What Gawker did in the Bollea case has nothing to do with journalism. They wanted to create a sensationalist tabloid story with stolen footage of a private and embarrassing encounter to make money. Like any business endeavor, there's the possibility that you lose money. When you're a non-essential business that costs someone millions, be expected to pay millions.
emodendroket 10y ago
I'm not going to make a judgment about whether it crosses over into being unethical, but a rich man trying to shut down a news outlet because he doesn't like what they said about him at least raises questions.
panglott 10y ago
The problem is not that Thiel's action here is unethical or illegal so much as it breaks norms. That's why you get so many slippery-slope arguments.
vithlani 10y ago
You don't see what is un-ethical here? If he is so concerned about Gawker and it's misbehavior, why not sue them directly -- as they have written plenty about him and his friends? Why use this as a stalking horse? If some other media outlet (say NY Times group) was being sued into the ground by some billionaire, there would be a huge uproar. But because this is Gawker (a universally media-hated media outfit which regularly and cheerfully exposes the corruption, decadence and double standards of regular media), nobody cares. Like it or not, they have played an important part in exposing and shining a light on Silicon Valley shenanigans, incompetence and plain criminal mis-management. My problem with this is: a handful of people like Thiel and his friends have gotten rich by feasting off other people's private information and basically un-checked surveillance (not just FB, also Palantir and Paypal). Yet when the same is applied to them (and hardly to the same degree), they ruthlessly want to exact revenge. I sincerely hope Gawker win this case, especially as it is being used purely as a front to attack them for basically doing their job.
XJOKOLAT 10y ago
There's a very fine line to be drawn. I think it boils down to a conflict of interest and hence Thiel shouldn't have been involved in the legal process at all. That's the unethical element about it (to me). I think it's also about transparency. Thiel should have been front and centre during the legal process and open about his involvement instead of manipulating from the background. Now, Thiel has not only undermined his own reputation (would you want to deal with a man who, if you got on the wrong side of him, might use considerable economic might to bring you down?) and the reputation of the legal system (now perceived to be a football game for billionaires). You can argue day and night whether or not this is ethical or unethical, or how important the original legal cases were. However, Thiels' approach failed the smell test (to me) and has done more overall harm than good in the cold light of day ... just so one man could have a "fuck you" moment in the sunshine. Disclaimer: if half of the things written about Gawker are true, I'm obviously not in their camp. It's possible to criticize both for different reasons.

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

by 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.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    The US also has a small claims court, every country does. The problems is that people have very skewed view of the US legal system mainly because of big cases that are sensationalized by them media. Most law suits in the US don't end up as multi-million dollar cases.
internaut 10y ago
> what does it say about our justice system when a millionaire needs a billionaire to help seek justice > "Yea that's a good way of handling things" That's my view in a nutshell. Despite our reputation as supposed money grubbers perpetually on the side of Big Business I've yet to meet any libertarian who thinks the poor are less deserving of justice, or as we say here: 'a fair shake'. The thing is a codebase overflowing with cruft.
Artistry121 10y ago
It was given that Thiel works in the same system. Donate to the ACLU if you want things to change but don't blame a good thing for being done. Hopefully this will lessen the likelyhood of lawsuits needed to be brought in the future.

djrobstep 10y ago

A libertarian using the power of government to crush free speech is pretty hypocritical if not unethical.

leroy_masochist 10y ago
Being able to use the courts to sue for defamation is pretty widely accepted as legit by most if not all strains of libertarianism. It's actually a clear example of a valid case in which governmental authority is necessary.
- djrobstep 10y ago
  Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny."
  - darawk 10y ago
    Either way, his position is not hypocritical.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    That's right-wing libertarianism. Libertarianism was first formulated by a French anarcho-communist named Joseph Déjacque in the late 1800's, who lambasted Proudhon (of "property is theft" fame) for not being sufficiently focused on liberty. Right-libertarianism on the other hand was basically an attempt at reformulating the theories of Ayn Rand and von Mises to something that would allow a common from on many issues with liberal groups on the left.
- kedean 10y ago
  It is, but that's not what Thiel is trying to do. He is backing an unrelated lawsuit in an effort to squash them. The action that he had a problem with, them outing him, is in no way illegal, so he got into a proxy war against them. That is unquestionably unethical. The ethical thing for him to do would be to come at them head on in the public arena.

FireBeyond 10y ago

I wonder whether Hogan/Bollea was advised by "his" counsel about the ramifications of dropping one of the pieces of litigation - a piece that would have increased the ability for Bollea to collect that damage award. As it happens the particular tort that was dropped was the only one that would allow Gawker to use their insurance to cover the liability of the verdict awarded. Thiel's goal is to destroy Gawker. A Gawker that is less able to pay out a verdict (because the verdict was $100M, but Gawker's revenue is only around $40M/yr) is going to go bankrupt, versus potentially staying in business if their insurer pays out. What's Bollea's goal? To destroy Gawker? Or achieve recompense? Or indeed both? Given that the counsel used by Bollea in this case is the same lawyer/law firm that Thiel is also channeling significant other money - and clients - to, for exactly the same thing, how clear is it exactly who the firm's client _really_ is - Bollea, or Thiel? And if Bollea and Thiel's goals are not the same (because as Thiel says, Bollea couldn't afford to do this himself), whose is going to take priority? Was Bollea briefed on the consequences of dropping this part of the suit (thus risking the ability for him to be paid/paid as much)? If so, was he okay with it? Is he expecting external compensation? Do the lawyers have a conflict of interest here? Is Bollea a knowledgeable/willing partner, or a semi or wholly uninformed pawn? However reprehensible Gawker is in this, there absolutely a wide crevice where there are perfectly valid ethical questions about Thiel's involvement and motivations in this whole debacle.

2chen 10y ago
You still haven't made a case that Thiel's actions are unethical.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  At no point have I said that Thiel acted unethically, either. I think it's natural, and valid, to ask questions, or discuss why someone might act in a way that on the surface appears deleterious to their own interests, particularly when there is someone behind the curtains who does have a different, or tangential interest.
will_brown 10y ago
>...there are perfectly valid ethical questions about Thiel's involvement and motivations in this whole debacle. Your post basically reads like a law school ethics question/answer. You did a great job issue spotting. Law being one of the most highly regulated industries there are rules on point, so I can answer some of your questions. Here is how the Florida Rule of Professional Conduct reads "Rule 4-5.4(d): Exercise of Independent Professional Judgment. A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services." In other words, under the rules Bollea is the Client. As such has full decision making power with the attorney-client relationship. Not only would funny business result in the disbarment of the lawyer, there are also a lot of practicalities to law that prevent the undue influence on the lawyer. For example if Bollea wants to settle its not like Thiel could direct the firm to trial for a chance at a bigger judgment over Bollea's wishes, there would be record and it would be grounds for a malpractice claim and disbarment. Lawyer's can't even withhold settlement offers from clients, without there being a record, and again grounds for malpractice and disbarment. Your issue about dropping the claim against the interest of Bollea's ability to collect is interesting, but again if it can be shown Bollea suffered damage (lost ability to collect full judgment through insurance) because the lawyers breached their duty to the client that is grounds for malpractice.

andkon 10y ago

A rich person acted out his retributive fantasies by paying a law team for years to trawl through everything Gawker put out in search of litigable offenses. That's unethical on the part of the lawyers, probably, and on the part of Thiel, certainly. He never had a chance to win any personal verdict, so he went nuclear. There's no way that won't have a chilling effect on other media companies who consider whether or not to cover the stupid shit that rich people do. And it was cheap for him - around $10mm to bankrupt his mortal enemy. There's no way that other rich folks aren't going to do it as well, especially now that he's framing it as a philanthropic act.

ElComradio 10y ago
You make him sound like someone who is filing frivolous lawsuits. The Hogan case involves an outrageous invasion of privacy of extremely dubious newsworthiness, nothing at all like, say, outing a lesbian congresswoman who supports traditional marriage legislation. He's not going through looking for possible gotchas; these cases are pretty clear cut.
- andkon 10y ago
  He didn't file a frivolous lawsuit. He decided to not file a frivolous lawsuit, and instead to fund every viable lawsuit he could purely so he could bankrupt a media company that had covered him very unfavourably in the past. He'll probably keep doing it, if more such cases pop up. He isn't on Hulk Hogan's side. He's on his side, and he won. Making this about the particulars of Hogan's case is deliberately eliding the fact that Thiel didn't give a shit about Hogan's case other than that it could bankrupt Gawker.
  - ElComradio 10y ago
    If in fact there are other viable cases, in the absence of Thiel the injustice would then be that Gawker can behave badly indefinitely because most of the victims will not pay the necessary amount to litigate.
bogomipz 10y ago

r0h1n 10y ago

It's unethical because (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge, (b) he appears to be behind the decision to drop a certain charge from the lawsuit only so that Gawker wouldn't have insurance cover - it shows vindictiveness, (c) Thiel's goal seems to be to bankrupt and shut down Gawker. Most of all, if this was indeed above board and ethical, why did Thiel feel the need to do this surreptitiously until outed by the NYT (is he going to fund someone to sue them too?).

cjbprime 10y ago
> (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge That would be unethical if the case were frivolous, or designed to bankrupt Gawker through "court fees" defending themselves against unreasonable complaints, or so on. Gawker's going bankrupt, if they do, because they lost the case, for what I think were correct reasons. It can not be unethical to help someone get justice they were owed. If there are more cases like this one, I hope the plaintiffs win those cases too.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Would Gawker go bankrupt if the damages were set at $10 million? What about $20 million? $100 million? Why not $1 billion. Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair? Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would you keep true to your word that you hope more cases like this happen and that the plaintiffs win those cases too?
  - MisterBastahrd 10y ago
    Wealthy people tend to have a lot of income. He lost a lot of income due to Gawker. Yes, it's just and fair. Bollea was making millions and millions a year in roles and endorsements, and that dried up after Gawker went after him. Gawker makes millions too. What Gawker did in the Bollea case has nothing to do with journalism. They wanted to create a sensationalist tabloid story with stolen footage of a private and embarrassing encounter to make money. Like any business endeavor, there's the possibility that you lose money. When you're a non-essential business that costs someone millions, be expected to pay millions.

emodendroket 10y ago

I'm not going to make a judgment about whether it crosses over into being unethical, but a rich man trying to shut down a news outlet because he doesn't like what they said about him at least raises questions.

panglott 10y ago

The problem is not that Thiel's action here is unethical or illegal so much as it breaks norms. That's why you get so many slippery-slope arguments.

vithlani 10y ago

You don't see what is un-ethical here? If he is so concerned about Gawker and it's misbehavior, why not sue them directly -- as they have written plenty about him and his friends? Why use this as a stalking horse? If some other media outlet (say NY Times group) was being sued into the ground by some billionaire, there would be a huge uproar. But because this is Gawker (a universally media-hated media outfit which regularly and cheerfully exposes the corruption, decadence and double standards of regular media), nobody cares. Like it or not, they have played an important part in exposing and shining a light on Silicon Valley shenanigans, incompetence and plain criminal mis-management. My problem with this is: a handful of people like Thiel and his friends have gotten rich by feasting off other people's private information and basically un-checked surveillance (not just FB, also Palantir and Paypal). Yet when the same is applied to them (and hardly to the same degree), they ruthlessly want to exact revenge. I sincerely hope Gawker win this case, especially as it is being used purely as a front to attack them for basically doing their job.

XJOKOLAT 10y ago

There's a very fine line to be drawn. I think it boils down to a conflict of interest and hence Thiel shouldn't have been involved in the legal process at all. That's the unethical element about it (to me). I think it's also about transparency. Thiel should have been front and centre during the legal process and open about his involvement instead of manipulating from the background. Now, Thiel has not only undermined his own reputation (would you want to deal with a man who, if you got on the wrong side of him, might use considerable economic might to bring you down?) and the reputation of the legal system (now perceived to be a football game for billionaires). You can argue day and night whether or not this is ethical or unethical, or how important the original legal cases were. However, Thiels' approach failed the smell test (to me) and has done more overall harm than good in the cold light of day ... just so one man could have a "fuck you" moment in the sunshine. Disclaimer: if half of the things written about Gawker are true, I'm obviously not in their camp. It's possible to criticize both for different reasons.