6 ms·

Neither side here looks great. It's reasonable for someone to sue Gawker because of what they publish. It's a bit scary to have someone attempt to take down a

by wrsh07 10y ago

Neither side here looks great. It's reasonable for someone to sue Gawker because of what they publish. It's a bit scary to have someone attempt to take down a publishing company just because of a long-held grudge. That's a template for private censorship by the rich.

maratd 10y ago
> That's a template for private censorship by the rich. No. Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong. The courts frown on attempts to do that. For you to do something wrong, you had to cause clearly defined harm. If you're causing harm, why shouldn't you be sued out of existence? The injustice here isn't that the rich can eliminate bad actors ... it's that the rest of us can't!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- CPLX 10y ago
  > Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong. That's absolutely incorrect. There is ample precedent of people using the civil legal system to suppress the media. Perhaps you heard of these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law
  - maratd 10y ago
    I was explicitly talking at the US legal system, so the proper link is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_the_USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_t... Read that over. They did not have a lot of things go their way.
    - CPLX 10y ago
      Perhaps. As far as I can tell though they successfully kept the news that they were running a financially fraudulent cult completely out of the mainstream media for decades, until the invention of the internet made that goal increasingly impossible.
- klagermkii 10y ago
  You underestimate the power of being able to turn the Eye of Justice selectively upon individuals or groups of enemies. It's one of the reasons people get so upset with racial or class-based profiling. We may all agree that enforcing speeding laws is a good thing, and someone who gets a ticket for it deserves the fine. But if I could fund the police department to have a car permanently follow just you around and nail you for each transgression, it turns something that is fair for each individual offense into something unfair in aggregate. Even if by doing so I was making the roads safer, and you technically deserved each fine. I think Peter Thiel is doing something similar and even though Gawker is in the wrong in the individual case and deserves to lose, I strongly dislike being able to keep paying to throw the justice system against your enemies.
  - maratd 10y ago
    In your example, you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government. You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity. There has always been yellow journalism. Gawker isn't new. What is new is that this is the first time an establishment like that got a bloody nose. Usually they're the ones using the legal system to silence those they abuse.
    - klagermkii 10y ago
      > you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government I don't think if it's government or individual it changes the inherent unfairness of having someone decide to watch you, and just you, for any sign of a slip up and then getting you punished based on it. Heck, I think most siblings understand this kind of unfairness with uneven parental justice. > You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity. There's an order of magnitude difference between the net worth of Thiel and Gawker as a whole. And that's on a good day for Gawker.
GVIrish 10y ago
To me it would only be scary if a media company was taken down by a rich entity simply litigating them until they couldn't afford to fight the lawsuits anymore. In this case, Gawker lost because they were in the wrong. A media company operating with integrity has nothing to fear here.
- iamdave 10y ago
  To me it would only be scary if a media company was taken down by a rich entity simply litigating them until they couldn't afford to fight the lawsuits anymore. In this case, Gawker lost because they were in the wrong. I've read exactly two articles re: Thiel vs. Gawker, but....isn't that exactly what's happening? I don't see Gawker's "wrongness" as entirely relevant to the fact that Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation in the hundreds (edit: tens) of millions of dollars-just to see Gawker go away. I absolutely loathe Gawker Media, I loathe this even more.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    He's also financing multiple cases, isn't he?
    - iamdave 10y ago
      I honestly don't know, I'm learning more just reading other comments and their accompanying links. To wit, I'm slowly having my understanding of this whole thing shaped and evolved as I read more from others on this-but the impression I picked up from a piece on TheAtlantic was that Thiel was using his buying power essentially to win this case by attrition-which is the aspect of this (if provably true) that I (personally) have icky with.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        Well, yes, that's right, but I think it also spans multiple cases, not just the Hogan case.
moultano 10y ago
It's not the legal fees that are doing them in, it's the damages awarded by the judge.
- zardgiv 10y ago
  This sounds like it's meant to be a correction, but the post your responding to mentions neither legal fees nor damages. Are you responding to the right comment?
  - moultano 10y ago
    Yes. My point is to make a distinction between using the high cost of the legal system for leverage and relying on the court system to actually dispense justice. Often people are bullied into a settlement because legal cases cost money, and the other side has more money, but that isn't happening here. If the courts rule against you, and we believe the courts are just, then it shouldn't matter how the process was financed, or whose interests were involved.
    - zardgiv 10y ago
      Considering this is the only one of the lawsuits he's funded that he's revealed, it's unclear that all of them have merit. On top of that, they forum shopped this specific case and dropped claims that would have allowed Gawker's insurance to cover damages. Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP. Your argument is poorly thought out.
      - moultano 10y ago
        My understanding is that this judgement alone is sufficient to cause Gawker's financial problems, and that there aren't others that are material. Correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here. >Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP. I think it's worth differentiating cases with merit from cases where there has actually been a clear judgement against the defendant. I have a hard time calling the second class unethical, regardless of the motivation.

by wrsh07 10y ago

maratd 10y ago

> That's a template for private censorship by the rich. No. Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong. The courts frown on attempts to do that. For you to do something wrong, you had to cause clearly defined harm. If you're causing harm, why shouldn't you be sued out of existence? The injustice here isn't that the rich can eliminate bad actors ... it's that the rest of us can't!

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
CPLX 10y ago
> Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong. That's absolutely incorrect. There is ample precedent of people using the civil legal system to suppress the media. Perhaps you heard of these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law
- maratd 10y ago
  I was explicitly talking at the US legal system, so the proper link is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_the_USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_t... Read that over. They did not have a lot of things go their way.
  - CPLX 10y ago
    Perhaps. As far as I can tell though they successfully kept the news that they were running a financially fraudulent cult completely out of the mainstream media for decades, until the invention of the internet made that goal increasingly impossible.
klagermkii 10y ago
You underestimate the power of being able to turn the Eye of Justice selectively upon individuals or groups of enemies. It's one of the reasons people get so upset with racial or class-based profiling. We may all agree that enforcing speeding laws is a good thing, and someone who gets a ticket for it deserves the fine. But if I could fund the police department to have a car permanently follow just you around and nail you for each transgression, it turns something that is fair for each individual offense into something unfair in aggregate. Even if by doing so I was making the roads safer, and you technically deserved each fine. I think Peter Thiel is doing something similar and even though Gawker is in the wrong in the individual case and deserves to lose, I strongly dislike being able to keep paying to throw the justice system against your enemies.
- maratd 10y ago
  In your example, you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government. You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity. There has always been yellow journalism. Gawker isn't new. What is new is that this is the first time an establishment like that got a bloody nose. Usually they're the ones using the legal system to silence those they abuse.
  - klagermkii 10y ago
    > you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government I don't think if it's government or individual it changes the inherent unfairness of having someone decide to watch you, and just you, for any sign of a slip up and then getting you punished based on it. Heck, I think most siblings understand this kind of unfairness with uneven parental justice. > You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity. There's an order of magnitude difference between the net worth of Thiel and Gawker as a whole. And that's on a good day for Gawker.

GVIrish 10y ago

To me it would only be scary if a media company was taken down by a rich entity simply litigating them until they couldn't afford to fight the lawsuits anymore. In this case, Gawker lost because they were in the wrong. A media company operating with integrity has nothing to fear here.

iamdave 10y ago
To me it would only be scary if a media company was taken down by a rich entity simply litigating them until they couldn't afford to fight the lawsuits anymore. In this case, Gawker lost because they were in the wrong. I've read exactly two articles re: Thiel vs. Gawker, but....isn't that exactly what's happening? I don't see Gawker's "wrongness" as entirely relevant to the fact that Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation in the hundreds (edit: tens) of millions of dollars-just to see Gawker go away. I absolutely loathe Gawker Media, I loathe this even more.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  He's also financing multiple cases, isn't he?
  - iamdave 10y ago
    I honestly don't know, I'm learning more just reading other comments and their accompanying links. To wit, I'm slowly having my understanding of this whole thing shaped and evolved as I read more from others on this-but the impression I picked up from a piece on TheAtlantic was that Thiel was using his buying power essentially to win this case by attrition-which is the aspect of this (if provably true) that I (personally) have icky with.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Well, yes, that's right, but I think it also spans multiple cases, not just the Hogan case.

moultano 10y ago

It's not the legal fees that are doing them in, it's the damages awarded by the judge.

zardgiv 10y ago
This sounds like it's meant to be a correction, but the post your responding to mentions neither legal fees nor damages. Are you responding to the right comment?
- moultano 10y ago
  Yes. My point is to make a distinction between using the high cost of the legal system for leverage and relying on the court system to actually dispense justice. Often people are bullied into a settlement because legal cases cost money, and the other side has more money, but that isn't happening here. If the courts rule against you, and we believe the courts are just, then it shouldn't matter how the process was financed, or whose interests were involved.
  - zardgiv 10y ago
    Considering this is the only one of the lawsuits he's funded that he's revealed, it's unclear that all of them have merit. On top of that, they forum shopped this specific case and dropped claims that would have allowed Gawker's insurance to cover damages. Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP. Your argument is poorly thought out.
    - moultano 10y ago
      My understanding is that this judgement alone is sufficient to cause Gawker's financial problems, and that there aren't others that are material. Correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here. >Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP. I think it's worth differentiating cases with merit from cases where there has actually been a clear judgement against the defendant. I have a hard time calling the second class unethical, regardless of the motivation.