3 ms·
Gawker broke the law. And, their whole business model seems to have been predicated upon the ability to victimise people who have no recourse. Not even Hulk Ho
by lhnz 10y ago
Gawker broke the law.
And, their whole business model seems to have been predicated upon the ability to victimise people who have no recourse. Not even Hulk Hogan had the money to fight back against them.
Given this, the argument that Thiel's ability to endanger Gawker because of his money is a dangerous precedent is completely hypocritical. Gawker is the precedent for money allowing you to ruin other people's lives.
They acted the way they did because they thought they were untouchable. Their millions made them untouchable. This is why Gawker was able to ruin people's lives with legal impunity.
That is also why Thiel's billions will be able to destroy them.
Whoever wrote this seems to care now that Gawker is legally defenceless, but doesn't seem to recognise that this is exactly the state that their victims were originally in.
It's shameful.
- DasIch 10y agoAgreed. The problem isn't that Thiel supported Hogan in his trial, it's that it was necessary for someone like Thiel to do so in order for a victim of Gawker to get justice.
- SilasX 10y agoMany people don't have an "angel" like that to ensure they get justice.
- metaphorm 10y agoits possible to find much fault with Thiel's tactics while also finding Gawker reprehensible.
- lhnz 10y agoYes, but finding tactics reprehensible won't change the tactics of powerful people and organisations. One can consistently dislike how the justice system is controlled by money, but one can't consistently take sides between Gawker and Thiel. They are both acting within the limits of the same system - it just so happens that Thiel is the bigger fish. If the justice system wasn't run with money, then Gawker wouldn't have been able to threaten people with less resources than them, and Thiel would not have been able to threaten Gawker.
- ryguytilidie 10y agoWhile I agree with your points you're kind of missing the bigger one. Lots of media outlets break the law. The problem here is that one company who broke the law got punished by a billionaire because they were kinda mean to him. To me this is very bizarre.
- Artistry121 10y agoIt seems good to me. Peter Thiel did a public service. Lawbreakers were punished without tax payer dollars because they did the wrong thing. It's how the system is supposed to work and an impartial judge found in favor.
- ryguytilidie 10y agoRight, but my point is that there are a lot of lawbreakers who will not be punished at all because they were not "not nice" to a billionaire. I guess I'm in favor of "all companies breaking the law should be punished" versus "billionaires should selectively bankroll cases against companies that broke the law if that company isnt nice to them". I think people aren't seeing the bigger picture here.
- DasIch 10y agoIt doesn't matter how many media outlets break the law. If the law is bad, it should be changed but if it isn't and the media outlets break the law, they should be held accountable.
- lhnz 10y agoSure, it's bizarre that justice has to happen this way. But you can't honestly think a big media company like Gawker should be allowed to break the law and humiliate others just because their money protects them from their victim's getting any justice?
- ryguytilidie 10y ago"But you can't honestly think a big media company like Gawker should be allowed to break the law and humiliate others just because their money protects them from their victim's getting any justice?" I don't believe that at all. I just find it really troubling that Gawker (who deserved to be brought to justice) was only brought to justice because they were kind of mean to a billionaire once and because of this that billionaire bankrolled a lawsuit against them. Kind of shitty that "justice" comes at the will of spiteful billionaires is all I'm saying. OF COURSE Gawker deserved everything they got. No argument there.
- exolymph 10y agoWhether or not Gawker broke the law is what is being adjudicated -- it's not clear-cut.