4 ms·

Wanted: Better Defenses of Peter Thiel

11 points by aaronbrethorst 10y ago

internaut 10y ago
These are the options according to the author. Option 1. Thiel clandestinely funds lawsuits. This makes him a Bad Man, distributing cats paws and using them to pervert the public interest. Option 2. Thiel openly funds lawsuits. This enables him to: 2.1. Give a heads up to his adversaries. Sporting chance perhaps. 2.2. Be vilified as contributing to chilling effects by spreading fear of being sued in the media establishment. Needless to say the Bad Man is perverting the public interest. Huh. His logic just eats itself. He also says a number of things about the law I suspect cannot be true since he has to fall back on claiming Thiel is defying the laws of countries that don't exist today and which in any case would not apply to the United States if they did. I don't have the time to critique his other claims, I really don't.
jessriedel 10y ago
The author is not nearly insightful enough to justify his inflammatory tone.
- p4wnc6 10y ago
  Can you substantiate this?
  - internaut 10y ago
    Not worried about any trash talk like labeling people cowards (from my perspective it's like calling you into the light to get a better shot with a different barrel) but the author doesn't want to consider that the public and private interests can be aligned. He has a point about Foucault. The rest isn't well argued, he is hand waving frantically so you don't consider the facts he's leaving out.
    - p4wnc6 10y ago
      This still just seems unsubstantiated. Can you point to what is hand waving or what important things are left out?
      - internaut 10y ago
        Am tired. Also tipsy. So bear that in mind. >Indeed, what Thiel is doing used to be illegal. It isn't legally relevant that Anglo-Norman laws would find Thiel guilty of something. They're from a different time and place to us. That's hand waving if we're talking legality. Now let's talk of selectively leaving facts out. Supposing there exist laws for chamberty and barratry in our society. Ok. Now has Thiel violated them? Chamberty isn't worth discussing because not even Gawker believes he did it for money. Barratry is defined in the article as vexatious litigation or incitement to it. What's left out is that Thiel did not incite litigation by searching for a person who could hypothetically sue Gawker and then proceed to financially motivate them. He found somebody definitely wanted to sue (I might be correct to say that he was already in the process of this) Gawker and supported that effort financially. It is vexatious litigation? No. This is when a frivolous lawsuit or meritless motions are repeatedly launched. This is left out. Hogan/Terry's lawsuit had merit and the judge evidently must have found it be be a straight forward black and white case of wrongdoing judging from the fact she awarded more compensation than requested (I think). Again, relevant information left out. If there existed a variety of bullshit lawsuits against Gawker, they would definitely be making us aware of that and pointing to Peter Thiel as the originator. Since they are not we can be reasonably sure they do not exist.
        p4wnc6 10y ago
        You unjustifiably dismiss champerty. Champerty is not merely participating in the financial outcome of another's legal result, rather it is participating in "the subject matter of the action." In this case, it's reasonable to argue Thiel is maintaining the suit in order to participate in the status or personal satisfaction of ensuring Gawker must pay a ruinous amount of money. In fact, that is the primary issue: that he is doing it because he personally doesn't like Gawker and derives personal pleasure from participating in Gawker's ruin. Champerty is, unarguably, highly relevant. I agree that it's not vexatious litigation. Most probably the litigation already existed and was deemed reasonable as it proceeded to be heard. Regarding your final paragraph, there actually is some question as to how many suits Thiel has helped support. If evidence were found that the common link was Gawker, that would heighten suspicion. Whether any of them were "bullshit" would be open for the asking. And even if they were permissible suits by the letter of the law, Thiel's actions could still be worthy of significant criticism and warning in regards to effects on press freedom. A lot of the defenses I see for Thiel go along the lines of "but what he's doing is legal by the letter of the law." I find this silly, because most of the criticism in this situation is focused on saying that it's morally wrong and violates the spirit of the law, and might be a good prompt to ask questions about legal reform.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
I don't a dog in this fight, but my opinion is that it is OK to privately pay legal expenses for someone else. Was it legal? Apparently yes. So, what is the problem? Edit: to be fair, I am a little biased because Thiel's book 'Zero to One' was very useful, and I have never got value from Gawker.

These are the options according to the author. Option 1. Thiel clandestinely funds lawsuits. This makes him a Bad Man, distributing cats paws and using them to pervert the public interest. Option 2. Thiel openly funds lawsuits. This enables him to: 2.1. Give a heads up to his adversaries. Sporting chance perhaps. 2.2. Be vilified as contributing to chilling effects by spreading fear of being sued in the media establishment. Needless to say the Bad Man is perverting the public interest. Huh. His logic just eats itself. He also says a number of things about the law I suspect cannot be true since he has to fall back on claiming Thiel is defying the laws of countries that don't exist today and which in any case would not apply to the United States if they did. I don't have the time to critique his other claims, I really don't.

jessriedel 10y ago

The author is not nearly insightful enough to justify his inflammatory tone.

p4wnc6 10y ago
Can you substantiate this?
- internaut 10y ago
  Not worried about any trash talk like labeling people cowards (from my perspective it's like calling you into the light to get a better shot with a different barrel) but the author doesn't want to consider that the public and private interests can be aligned. He has a point about Foucault. The rest isn't well argued, he is hand waving frantically so you don't consider the facts he's leaving out.
  - p4wnc6 10y ago
    This still just seems unsubstantiated. Can you point to what is hand waving or what important things are left out?
    - internaut 10y ago
      Am tired. Also tipsy. So bear that in mind. >Indeed, what Thiel is doing used to be illegal. It isn't legally relevant that Anglo-Norman laws would find Thiel guilty of something. They're from a different time and place to us. That's hand waving if we're talking legality. Now let's talk of selectively leaving facts out. Supposing there exist laws for chamberty and barratry in our society. Ok. Now has Thiel violated them? Chamberty isn't worth discussing because not even Gawker believes he did it for money. Barratry is defined in the article as vexatious litigation or incitement to it. What's left out is that Thiel did not incite litigation by searching for a person who could hypothetically sue Gawker and then proceed to financially motivate them. He found somebody definitely wanted to sue (I might be correct to say that he was already in the process of this) Gawker and supported that effort financially. It is vexatious litigation? No. This is when a frivolous lawsuit or meritless motions are repeatedly launched. This is left out. Hogan/Terry's lawsuit had merit and the judge evidently must have found it be be a straight forward black and white case of wrongdoing judging from the fact she awarded more compensation than requested (I think). Again, relevant information left out. If there existed a variety of bullshit lawsuits against Gawker, they would definitely be making us aware of that and pointing to Peter Thiel as the originator. Since they are not we can be reasonably sure they do not exist.
      - p4wnc6 10y ago
        You unjustifiably dismiss champerty. Champerty is not merely participating in the financial outcome of another's legal result, rather it is participating in "the subject matter of the action." In this case, it's reasonable to argue Thiel is maintaining the suit in order to participate in the status or personal satisfaction of ensuring Gawker must pay a ruinous amount of money. In fact, that is the primary issue: that he is doing it because he personally doesn't like Gawker and derives personal pleasure from participating in Gawker's ruin. Champerty is, unarguably, highly relevant. I agree that it's not vexatious litigation. Most probably the litigation already existed and was deemed reasonable as it proceeded to be heard. Regarding your final paragraph, there actually is some question as to how many suits Thiel has helped support. If evidence were found that the common link was Gawker, that would heighten suspicion. Whether any of them were "bullshit" would be open for the asking. And even if they were permissible suits by the letter of the law, Thiel's actions could still be worthy of significant criticism and warning in regards to effects on press freedom. A lot of the defenses I see for Thiel go along the lines of "but what he's doing is legal by the letter of the law." I find this silly, because most of the criticism in this situation is focused on saying that it's morally wrong and violates the spirit of the law, and might be a good prompt to ask questions about legal reform.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

I don't a dog in this fight, but my opinion is that it is OK to privately pay legal expenses for someone else. Was it legal? Apparently yes. So, what is the problem? Edit: to be fair, I am a little biased because Thiel's book 'Zero to One' was very useful, and I have never got value from Gawker.