8 ms·

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.

by GVIrish 10y ago

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.
      - iamdave 10y ago
        Ah, see I'm still catching up to most people on the merits of the story; I was not previously aware that Thiel has funded other suits.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      Thiel's not bankrupting them, their own actions are.
  - AlexandrB 10y ago
    Not sure, but it sounds like he might be: > That and a series of articles about his friends and others that he said “ruined people’s lives for no reason” drove Mr. Thiel to mount a clandestine war against Gawker. He funded a team of lawyers to find and help “victims” of the company’s coverage mount cases against Gawker. [1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
- mgiannopoulos 10y ago
  "Hundreds of millions" The quoted number is 10 million http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter...
  - iamdave 10y ago
    Thanks for that, not sure where I got the extra multiple of ten from when I'm looking right at articles on this whole story.
    - chrischen 10y ago
      I think they are being sued for hundreds of millions.
- will_brown 10y ago
  >I don't see Gawker's "wrongness" as entirely relevant to the fact that Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation... It is directly related...If Gawker was not guilty of committing a tort that resulted in actual damages, then Thiel or anyone else would not be financing litigation against Gawker. >Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation in the hundreds of millions of dollars-just to see Gawker go away. Who gives a shit and why? Is it just because Thiel has a personal issue with Gawker? If Bollea couldn't afford the litigation legally he could use credit, take a bank loan, have family loan him money...legally, he is allowed to sell portions of any potential damages he may/may not be awarded to finance the litigation. What is a better alternative? Certainly we don't want to limit litigants financing to what they can afford out of pocket. And its not like Thiel or any other financier is allowed to have any influence on the independence of the client's lawyer, so its not like Thiel can prevent Bollea from settling if the amount is agreeable to the client. Finally, there are mechanisms that Gawker had at its disposal it didn't use that they could have to stop the bleeding. They could have offered Bollea a settlement and avoided litigation, and even if Thiel unduly influenced Bollea to keep the litigation to bleed Gawker, they could have file a Proposal for Settlement above the actual damages and when the judgment comes back under the proposed settlement amount, then Bollea would actually be responsible for Gawkers lawyer's fees (i.e. they would be net + on the litigation even though they lost).
  - iamdave 10y ago
    >Who gives a shit and why? You know, I'll never understand the immediate and swift "who cares" response when people are discussing a subject as some sort of "Excuse me but...". If there's a disagreement you wish to voice, voice it-let's not act like people aren't interested in it because of your disagreement. And as I've said, I've only read two articles on this whole thing and the entire ordeal seems sordid to me. I'm not a lawyer, so I wont even begin to pretend like I know what someone should or should not have done in the interests of their own defense, but the "backroom dealer" feel of the whole thing-personally speaking-reeks and doesn't quite sit well with me. I don't have all the answers to this, and I do plan to get more informed. And further, yes-I suppose if one were to argue using that Obi Wan "from a certain point of view" type of analysis-Gawker's wrongness is Germane so maybe this even falls to me to be more precise in my speaking: Gawker being in the wrong or Gawker being in the right doesn't change much of the strange sensation I feel when someone ostensibly brings sacks of money to the table in a lawsuit with the intent to win not on the merits of the case but by exhausting legal resources of their legal opponent.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  I don't see Gawker's "wrongness" as entirely relevant... It is 100% about the wrongness. If they weren't wrong, they would not have been sentenced to pay $140M.
jonknee 10y ago
> A media company operating with integrity has nothing to fear here. Until they do? Gawker is very likely to win on appeal, but who is going to want to invest in Gawker knowing that a litigious billionaire has a grudge against them?
- _Codemonkeyism 10y ago
  IANAL and I'm no expert in the US justice system. "Gawker is very likely to win on appeal" Sounds to me like a flaw in the justice system, if one side hands out high amounts of punishment, then the appeal system systematically reduces the payment. Not something the person who sues or supports the legal action is responsible for.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    It's not systematic (people frequently lose in appeal!), but the appeals process allows cases that merit a more sophisticated court to get one. This case didn't belong in front of a hometown jury.
altoz 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 It already is scary because people are taken down by the media company simply publishing lies because they can't afford to sue. Crying on behalf of Gawker in this case is a lot like crying for the bully that's finally getting punished.
SilasX 10y ago
Do they? Even if Gawker was in the wrong here, is publishing someone's private sex tape $140 million worth of wrong? What about all the other tabloids that have done something similar? It's exactly this kind of "jackpot justice" that illustrates how bad the system is, that everyone is one sympathetic jury away from being shut down. I can't upvote csallen's comment enough: the cost of being wrong is far too capricious. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11824026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11824026
- EdHominem 10y ago
  The amount in proportion to the money they make from doing this, and to what is needed for them to feel the burn.
abalone 10y ago
That is like saying law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from discretionary enforcement. What is your feeling on discretionary enforcement that targets a someone, or a population, because they are undesirable? If such enforcement uncovers crime (but was not motivated by crime), is it just?
bduerst 10y ago
The problem is "integrity" is subjective. Nobody cares about the beautiful stories that are published, just the ugly stories. Those ugly stories are still an important part of journalism, especially when they're ugly to people in power.

by GVIrish 10y ago

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.
    - iamdave 10y ago
      Ah, see I'm still catching up to most people on the merits of the story; I was not previously aware that Thiel has funded other suits.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    Thiel's not bankrupting them, their own actions are.
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  Not sure, but it sounds like he might be: > That and a series of articles about his friends and others that he said “ruined people’s lives for no reason” drove Mr. Thiel to mount a clandestine war against Gawker. He funded a team of lawyers to find and help “victims” of the company’s coverage mount cases against Gawker. [1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
mgiannopoulos 10y ago
"Hundreds of millions" The quoted number is 10 million http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter...
- iamdave 10y ago
  Thanks for that, not sure where I got the extra multiple of ten from when I'm looking right at articles on this whole story.
  - chrischen 10y ago
    I think they are being sued for hundreds of millions.
will_brown 10y ago
>I don't see Gawker's "wrongness" as entirely relevant to the fact that Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation... It is directly related...If Gawker was not guilty of committing a tort that resulted in actual damages, then Thiel or anyone else would not be financing litigation against Gawker. >Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation in the hundreds of millions of dollars-just to see Gawker go away. Who gives a shit and why? Is it just because Thiel has a personal issue with Gawker? If Bollea couldn't afford the litigation legally he could use credit, take a bank loan, have family loan him money...legally, he is allowed to sell portions of any potential damages he may/may not be awarded to finance the litigation. What is a better alternative? Certainly we don't want to limit litigants financing to what they can afford out of pocket. And its not like Thiel or any other financier is allowed to have any influence on the independence of the client's lawyer, so its not like Thiel can prevent Bollea from settling if the amount is agreeable to the client. Finally, there are mechanisms that Gawker had at its disposal it didn't use that they could have to stop the bleeding. They could have offered Bollea a settlement and avoided litigation, and even if Thiel unduly influenced Bollea to keep the litigation to bleed Gawker, they could have file a Proposal for Settlement above the actual damages and when the judgment comes back under the proposed settlement amount, then Bollea would actually be responsible for Gawkers lawyer's fees (i.e. they would be net + on the litigation even though they lost).
- iamdave 10y ago
  >Who gives a shit and why? You know, I'll never understand the immediate and swift "who cares" response when people are discussing a subject as some sort of "Excuse me but...". If there's a disagreement you wish to voice, voice it-let's not act like people aren't interested in it because of your disagreement. And as I've said, I've only read two articles on this whole thing and the entire ordeal seems sordid to me. I'm not a lawyer, so I wont even begin to pretend like I know what someone should or should not have done in the interests of their own defense, but the "backroom dealer" feel of the whole thing-personally speaking-reeks and doesn't quite sit well with me. I don't have all the answers to this, and I do plan to get more informed. And further, yes-I suppose if one were to argue using that Obi Wan "from a certain point of view" type of analysis-Gawker's wrongness is Germane so maybe this even falls to me to be more precise in my speaking: Gawker being in the wrong or Gawker being in the right doesn't change much of the strange sensation I feel when someone ostensibly brings sacks of money to the table in a lawsuit with the intent to win not on the merits of the case but by exhausting legal resources of their legal opponent.
BurningFrog 10y ago
I don't see Gawker's "wrongness" as entirely relevant... It is 100% about the wrongness. If they weren't wrong, they would not have been sentenced to pay $140M.

jonknee 10y ago

> A media company operating with integrity has nothing to fear here. Until they do? Gawker is very likely to win on appeal, but who is going to want to invest in Gawker knowing that a litigious billionaire has a grudge against them?

_Codemonkeyism 10y ago
IANAL and I'm no expert in the US justice system. "Gawker is very likely to win on appeal" Sounds to me like a flaw in the justice system, if one side hands out high amounts of punishment, then the appeal system systematically reduces the payment. Not something the person who sues or supports the legal action is responsible for.
- jonknee 10y ago
  It's not systematic (people frequently lose in appeal!), but the appeals process allows cases that merit a more sophisticated court to get one. This case didn't belong in front of a hometown jury.

altoz 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 It already is scary because people are taken down by the media company simply publishing lies because they can't afford to sue. Crying on behalf of Gawker in this case is a lot like crying for the bully that's finally getting punished.

SilasX 10y ago

Do they? Even if Gawker was in the wrong here, is publishing someone's private sex tape $140 million worth of wrong? What about all the other tabloids that have done something similar? It's exactly this kind of "jackpot justice" that illustrates how bad the system is, that everyone is one sympathetic jury away from being shut down. I can't upvote csallen's comment enough: the cost of being wrong is far too capricious. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11824026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11824026

EdHominem 10y ago
The amount in proportion to the money they make from doing this, and to what is needed for them to feel the burn.

abalone 10y ago

That is like saying law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from discretionary enforcement. What is your feeling on discretionary enforcement that targets a someone, or a population, because they are undesirable? If such enforcement uncovers crime (but was not motivated by crime), is it just?

bduerst 10y ago

The problem is "integrity" is subjective. Nobody cares about the beautiful stories that are published, just the ugly stories. Those ugly stories are still an important part of journalism, especially when they're ugly to people in power.