3 ms·
I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't like b
by CM30 10y ago
I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't like by funding any possible lawsuit against them.
But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn't have the right to post this content and didn't care that the courts found against them.
And when you consider that millionaires and billionaires often own media outlets as well, that can be worrying as well. What about a Murdoch esque figure trying to push their own views on society (and discredit opponents) through their newspapers and publications?
What Thiel did here is potentially worrying, but so are the other possibilities from the media site.
- NEDM64 10y agoI don't care, most publications today post whatever their "advertisers" want. Ventriloquism are the correct words, if you ask me. There's no such thing as press today.
- TheCondor 10y agoThe issue to me seems that it is just accepted that you need lots of money to use the law properly. If it was just some rando who had his sex tape published by gawker shouldn't he be able to sue them and materially affect them? That he can't or there is the widely accepted belief that he can't is the problem. Rich guys have extracted revenge on others since there has been wealth, there is nothing new here except the belief that maybe Hogan somehow wouldn't have had a case without Thiel's help? Or maybe gawker could have delayed and played games to price Hogan out of a law suit or something? How isn't that messed up? Sure I get the fear of tons of frivolous law suits but what about serious ones? The poor can't take part. The Internet has brought on an entire generation of "journalists" without limits, the pendulum will swing back, that's how things tend to work. Gawker and the others were going to continue to push boundaries in the name of profit, not news, until somebody fought back and it should have been long before a celebrity sex tape. It shouldn't take a billionaire backed lawsuit.
- jonathankoren 10y agoI'll tell you exactly why what Peter Thiel is doing makes him a douchebag. He's doing it in secret. What's up with that? I'll tell you. It's because he wanted to avoid any blowback. He's a vindictive coward that wanted to launder his actions through a racist millionare former pro-wrestler plain and simple.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]