4 ms·

Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing you as being gay is not good behavior. This has dangerous precedent for freedom of

by byuu 10y ago

Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing you as being gay is not good behavior. This has dangerous precedent for freedom of speech in journalism. If what Gawker did was illegal in outing him, he should have sued for that. If it were just morally objectionable, he should have called them on it and let the public decide how to respond. What this lawsuit says is, "say something about a rich person that they don't like (even if it's perfectly legal or maybe even in the public's best interest to know), and they'll fund covert lawsuits against you to destroy your entire business." That's not a world I want to live in, regardless of what I think of Gawker (they're the internet equivalent of The National Enquirer in my eyes.) We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Do you believe it was wrong for rich people to fund (via the Southern Poverty Law Center intermediary) Keenan vs Aryan Nations, on the basis of hating Aryan Nations? https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan-v-aryan-nations https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... If not, why not?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I bet it would be way less controversial if it came out that Thiel was openly funding an independent group that was focused on ethics in web journalism.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    The problem is more the reverse scenario. EG: A more legitimate media outlet runs some investigative reporting that exposes legitimate wrongdoing of company run by billionaire. Billionaire responds by funding tons of frivolous lawsuits in attempt to bankrupt / silence the media outlet. The way the justice system in too many countries works these days, it's possible that if the outlet doesn't have deep pockets, they're in trouble. This scenario is not out of the question. One past example that comes to mind immediately is Silvio Berlusconi, who was really fond of the libel lawsuit to quell any little bit of criticism. Now, I personally have no problems with the Gawker outcome, but I can also see the reason for concern behind Thiel's methodologies.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Thiel didn't fund tons of frivolous lawsuits (nor did the SPLC). Thiel and SPLC both funded solid lawsuits where the verdict - not litigation costs - is what bankrupts the other party. (A lawsuit is by definition not frivolous if you win.)
      - 627467 10y ago
        "Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others"[1]. I don't know how much it's tons, but certainly not only one, and so far seems like the only non-frivolous by that definition. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Do you have evidence that the others are frivolous? Suppose SPLC filed other lawsuits (besides the winning one) against Aryan Nations, not all of which were successful. Would you be similarly concerned?
      - soundwave106 10y ago
        I agree. I guess the question is just how much Thiel's money actually affected the outcome. Money="justice" is a problem, I think you'll agree. This is the red flag that I think many people are raising, not because of this particular case, but because of the potential of abuse of justice that such a scenario would allow. On the other hand, the outcome of this case could've been exactly the same even without Thiel's money. So maybe people are being too overly concerned about this angle.
  - sseveran 10y ago
    why? The result is the same. He probably could have used an "independent" organization but why bother? Organizations are only as independent as their control of their own funding. He could have just said to some organization "Here is the money. You will spend it suing gawker after taking your overhead." Personally I don't think this is a large issue. Neither SV nor in constitution is at stake here. If he was suing The National Enquirer for publishing a sex tape and not gawker would we really still be discussing this?
- byuu 10y ago
  Is your point that I should ignore my convictions because I find the defendants detestable? Because while I don't feel Gawker is quite as awful as a group of white supremacists, I do very much dislike Gawker and would not be saddened to see them go. I'm not really interested in loose-fitting analogies. Gawker didn't hire someone that shot at and kidnapped anyone. Let's rephrase it as a direct equivalence: let's say AN had a website where they outed Thiel, and then posted a sex tape of someone else. Then yes, I would feel the same way as I do now. My level of contempt for the defendent has no bearing on my concern over Thiel's actions. That would be very dangerous thinking as well, to have different sets of ethics depending upon who the defendants are. One of these days, it may be a website you support revealing embarrassing yet truthful information about someone wealthy (and maybe you think it's justified because of this person's actions), and you'll end up with someone you despise using their vast wealth to bankroll lawsuits. That said, I would like to see the cost of justice go way down. People are correct, you shouldn't need to be a billionaire to sue. And honestly, I don't think you'd have to be. I'm quite sure Bollea could have funded this lawsuit himself. Gawker isn't Oracle or Google with seven-figure lawyers on retainer. If Gawker really did break the law, and so far the first jury verdict suggests they did, then they should be punished, certainly. I just don't like a system where the rich can scare journalists (a term I do not consider applicable to Gawker writers), and the poor don't have access to the same justice that they do.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    In both cases, there is a group (call them X) who's speech is disliked. X engaged in illegal actions. A lawsuit was filed against them and funded by third parties in order to hinder/shut down X. The plaintiffs emerged victorious, suggesting the lawsuit had merit (i.e. it wasn't a frivolous lawsuit). I stand by the analogy. And yes, I'm asking if you oppose SPLC the same way you oppose Thiel. I actually do oppose Thiel here (though not the SPLC) since I'm opposed to revenge porn laws. However I'd support Thiel if he were targeting Gawker for something I think should be illegal. But I'm asking because very few of Thiel's critics seem willing to actually bite that bullet. (Incidentally, I was opposed to actions like this way back when the victims were completely sympathetic innocent females and the perpetrators were giant jerky perverts too. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moo... )
- shanacarp 10y ago
  Oh for goodness sake about slippery slopes and "being logical" May this be the one time I use this phrase Check your bloody privilege. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Seriously? In the real world which you, and, I and every person here HAS to operate - slippery slopes will exist because there are many local optima we HAVE to work with. Here is one YOU have to work with. Your last name is STUCCHIO! Last I checked it is ITALIAN, via SICILY! Which means the image in this article is totally relevant to you http://www.seidawriter.tk/white-girl-talks-about-race/ http://www.seidawriter.tk/white-girl-talks-about-race/ http://seidawriter.tk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Italian-300x201.jpg http://seidawriter.tk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Italian-300... Or the fact the writer is of the same background as you, and brings up that one of the largest mass lynchings was of Sicilians, in New Orleans, 1891. Or how about this notice from the 1930s, asking Italians, Germans, and Japanese to register: https://graphicandmaybe.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/notice.jpg https://graphicandmaybe.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/notice.j... So the Germans and Italians were just white enough in the US to avoid Internment Camps in the US? Do you want to go back to that era so badly with your last name? Meanwhile, the SPLC took in about $3.75 million in donations in 2015 - most of which was not through grants and not through funds - those are labeled differently in their audited statement here https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc-fs-10-31-15.pdf https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc-fs-10-31-... (the "wealthy" donors you talk of are almost always giving investments and many of those gifts have restrictions SPLC cannot go willy-nilly file lawsuits) And do you want to know why they got the money? https://mic.com/articles/145105/coincidence-detector-the-google-extension-white-supremacists-use-to-track-jews https://mic.com/articles/145105/coincidence-detector-the-goo... (and other people who are "anti-white"/not white enough) So while you are now white enough to get any job you want, including mathematician, barber, miner, engineer, whathaveyou, and you have the luxury of having the first name of Christian, these people don't. And there are plenty of people here with first/last names that appear here, or variant spellings - and they may not even be Jewish. https://gitlab.com/therightstuff/public/blob/30118b9db78fd87748ce3726447e875abd0f7a9d/theList.json https://gitlab.com/therightstuff/public/blob/30118b9db78fd87... That's why people donate to them. People want to know they can walk around apply for a job, and speak freely, without worrying that their name, or the color of their skin, of who they love will cause them harm. Now what they said (which you complain about), Or if they are logically consistent enough. Get over yourself and your need for everyone to be logically consistent 100% of the time. Unless you are ready to stand up and say you ant to go back to a world where it is ok for people to discriminate against you with no one who care out there on the basis of you being Italian.
gardano 10y ago
In an ideal world, what you say is probably correct. In the real world, the Streisand Effect comes into play.
AlioSke 10y ago
Maybe I am not understanding something about the situation, but I don't see the danger. Thiel is killing gawker via a meritorious lawsuit. I don't see whats problematic about that. If he was throwing frivilous lawsuits at I might agree, but that it isn't the case. If anything, isn't what Thiel is doing a positive good? We had a victim who didn't have the funds to bankroll his own case, Thiel stepped into do so. Gawker is only in this position because they violated people's rights. What this lawsuit says is "Say something about rich people they don't like, and they will start funding lawsuits from people you victimize." If anything, the problem here is that the victims of Gawker need the support of the ridiculously wealthy to take them down.
st3v3r 10y ago
"Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing you as being gay is not good behavior." Maybe, but I can't say it's bad behavior, either. "What this lawsuit says is, "say something about a rich person that they don't like (even if it's perfectly legal or maybe even in the public's best interest to know), and they'll fund covert lawsuits against you to destroy your entire business."" You're gonna have to point out what, if anything, the public's interest is in knowing that Peter Thiel was gay, or that Hogan made a sex tape. "We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."" Yeah, but when we're children, the world is pretty black and white. As adults, things tend to be gray.

by byuu 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Do you believe it was wrong for rich people to fund (via the Southern Poverty Law Center intermediary) Keenan vs Aryan Nations, on the basis of hating Aryan Nations? https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan-v-aryan-nations https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... If not, why not?

maxerickson 10y ago
I bet it would be way less controversial if it came out that Thiel was openly funding an independent group that was focused on ethics in web journalism.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  The problem is more the reverse scenario. EG: A more legitimate media outlet runs some investigative reporting that exposes legitimate wrongdoing of company run by billionaire. Billionaire responds by funding tons of frivolous lawsuits in attempt to bankrupt / silence the media outlet. The way the justice system in too many countries works these days, it's possible that if the outlet doesn't have deep pockets, they're in trouble. This scenario is not out of the question. One past example that comes to mind immediately is Silvio Berlusconi, who was really fond of the libel lawsuit to quell any little bit of criticism. Now, I personally have no problems with the Gawker outcome, but I can also see the reason for concern behind Thiel's methodologies.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Thiel didn't fund tons of frivolous lawsuits (nor did the SPLC). Thiel and SPLC both funded solid lawsuits where the verdict - not litigation costs - is what bankrupts the other party. (A lawsuit is by definition not frivolous if you win.)
    - 627467 10y ago
      "Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others"[1]. I don't know how much it's tons, but certainly not only one, and so far seems like the only non-frivolous by that definition. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Do you have evidence that the others are frivolous? Suppose SPLC filed other lawsuits (besides the winning one) against Aryan Nations, not all of which were successful. Would you be similarly concerned?
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      I agree. I guess the question is just how much Thiel's money actually affected the outcome. Money="justice" is a problem, I think you'll agree. This is the red flag that I think many people are raising, not because of this particular case, but because of the potential of abuse of justice that such a scenario would allow. On the other hand, the outcome of this case could've been exactly the same even without Thiel's money. So maybe people are being too overly concerned about this angle.
- sseveran 10y ago
  why? The result is the same. He probably could have used an "independent" organization but why bother? Organizations are only as independent as their control of their own funding. He could have just said to some organization "Here is the money. You will spend it suing gawker after taking your overhead." Personally I don't think this is a large issue. Neither SV nor in constitution is at stake here. If he was suing The National Enquirer for publishing a sex tape and not gawker would we really still be discussing this?
byuu 10y ago
Is your point that I should ignore my convictions because I find the defendants detestable? Because while I don't feel Gawker is quite as awful as a group of white supremacists, I do very much dislike Gawker and would not be saddened to see them go. I'm not really interested in loose-fitting analogies. Gawker didn't hire someone that shot at and kidnapped anyone. Let's rephrase it as a direct equivalence: let's say AN had a website where they outed Thiel, and then posted a sex tape of someone else. Then yes, I would feel the same way as I do now. My level of contempt for the defendent has no bearing on my concern over Thiel's actions. That would be very dangerous thinking as well, to have different sets of ethics depending upon who the defendants are. One of these days, it may be a website you support revealing embarrassing yet truthful information about someone wealthy (and maybe you think it's justified because of this person's actions), and you'll end up with someone you despise using their vast wealth to bankroll lawsuits. That said, I would like to see the cost of justice go way down. People are correct, you shouldn't need to be a billionaire to sue. And honestly, I don't think you'd have to be. I'm quite sure Bollea could have funded this lawsuit himself. Gawker isn't Oracle or Google with seven-figure lawyers on retainer. If Gawker really did break the law, and so far the first jury verdict suggests they did, then they should be punished, certainly. I just don't like a system where the rich can scare journalists (a term I do not consider applicable to Gawker writers), and the poor don't have access to the same justice that they do.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  In both cases, there is a group (call them X) who's speech is disliked. X engaged in illegal actions. A lawsuit was filed against them and funded by third parties in order to hinder/shut down X. The plaintiffs emerged victorious, suggesting the lawsuit had merit (i.e. it wasn't a frivolous lawsuit). I stand by the analogy. And yes, I'm asking if you oppose SPLC the same way you oppose Thiel. I actually do oppose Thiel here (though not the SPLC) since I'm opposed to revenge porn laws. However I'd support Thiel if he were targeting Gawker for something I think should be illegal. But I'm asking because very few of Thiel's critics seem willing to actually bite that bullet. (Incidentally, I was opposed to actions like this way back when the victims were completely sympathetic innocent females and the perpetrators were giant jerky perverts too. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moo... )
shanacarp 10y ago
Oh for goodness sake about slippery slopes and "being logical" May this be the one time I use this phrase Check your bloody privilege. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Seriously? In the real world which you, and, I and every person here HAS to operate - slippery slopes will exist because there are many local optima we HAVE to work with. Here is one YOU have to work with. Your last name is STUCCHIO! Last I checked it is ITALIAN, via SICILY! Which means the image in this article is totally relevant to you http://www.seidawriter.tk/white-girl-talks-about-race/ http://www.seidawriter.tk/white-girl-talks-about-race/ http://seidawriter.tk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Italian-300x201.jpg http://seidawriter.tk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Italian-300... Or the fact the writer is of the same background as you, and brings up that one of the largest mass lynchings was of Sicilians, in New Orleans, 1891. Or how about this notice from the 1930s, asking Italians, Germans, and Japanese to register: https://graphicandmaybe.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/notice.jpg https://graphicandmaybe.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/notice.j... So the Germans and Italians were just white enough in the US to avoid Internment Camps in the US? Do you want to go back to that era so badly with your last name? Meanwhile, the SPLC took in about $3.75 million in donations in 2015 - most of which was not through grants and not through funds - those are labeled differently in their audited statement here https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc-fs-10-31-15.pdf https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc-fs-10-31-... (the "wealthy" donors you talk of are almost always giving investments and many of those gifts have restrictions SPLC cannot go willy-nilly file lawsuits) And do you want to know why they got the money? https://mic.com/articles/145105/coincidence-detector-the-google-extension-white-supremacists-use-to-track-jews https://mic.com/articles/145105/coincidence-detector-the-goo... (and other people who are "anti-white"/not white enough) So while you are now white enough to get any job you want, including mathematician, barber, miner, engineer, whathaveyou, and you have the luxury of having the first name of Christian, these people don't. And there are plenty of people here with first/last names that appear here, or variant spellings - and they may not even be Jewish. https://gitlab.com/therightstuff/public/blob/30118b9db78fd87748ce3726447e875abd0f7a9d/theList.json https://gitlab.com/therightstuff/public/blob/30118b9db78fd87... That's why people donate to them. People want to know they can walk around apply for a job, and speak freely, without worrying that their name, or the color of their skin, of who they love will cause them harm. Now what they said (which you complain about), Or if they are logically consistent enough. Get over yourself and your need for everyone to be logically consistent 100% of the time. Unless you are ready to stand up and say you ant to go back to a world where it is ok for people to discriminate against you with no one who care out there on the basis of you being Italian.

gardano 10y ago

In an ideal world, what you say is probably correct. In the real world, the Streisand Effect comes into play.

AlioSke 10y ago

Maybe I am not understanding something about the situation, but I don't see the danger. Thiel is killing gawker via a meritorious lawsuit. I don't see whats problematic about that. If he was throwing frivilous lawsuits at I might agree, but that it isn't the case. If anything, isn't what Thiel is doing a positive good? We had a victim who didn't have the funds to bankroll his own case, Thiel stepped into do so. Gawker is only in this position because they violated people's rights. What this lawsuit says is "Say something about rich people they don't like, and they will start funding lawsuits from people you victimize." If anything, the problem here is that the victims of Gawker need the support of the ridiculously wealthy to take them down.

st3v3r 10y ago

"Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing you as being gay is not good behavior." Maybe, but I can't say it's bad behavior, either. "What this lawsuit says is, "say something about a rich person that they don't like (even if it's perfectly legal or maybe even in the public's best interest to know), and they'll fund covert lawsuits against you to destroy your entire business."" You're gonna have to point out what, if anything, the public's interest is in knowing that Peter Thiel was gay, or that Hogan made a sex tape. "We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."" Yeah, but when we're children, the world is pretty black and white. As adults, things tend to be gray.