6 ms·

The subject of the case is a red herring. Typically in these situations, a settlement is reached or insurance covers the damages. That didn't happen. Thiel h

by bduerst 10y ago

The subject of the case is a red herring. Typically in these situations, a settlement is reached or insurance covers the damages. That didn't happen. Thiel had an axe to grind against Gawker, invested $10m in the litigation, and pushed the case past settlement offers - even removing a claim that allowed insurance to cover damages. It focused on maximizing the damage to Gawker, which isn't what civil court is typically supposed to do. Thiel was out for blood, and he used his money in someone else's case to get it.

GCA10 10y ago
Let's not forget that Gawker monied up ahead of the trial, too. In a January 2016 staff memo, Gawker CEO Nick Denton described an investment by Columbus Nova (controlled by Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselburg) as a way to make sure his company had the resources for a full-stakes court battle. The judge in the case had recommended mediation, but both sides really wanted a big trial. So they got one.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Was Nova involved in the court case, or have a personal vendetta against Hogan?
- internaut 10y ago
  Interesting. Can you provide sources and also what do you think the end game is? Did Nick Denton know he was going to lose and go ahead anyway? Or was he just unable to conceive of losing?
  - GCA10 10y ago
    Glad to oblige on sources. Here's a copy of Nick Denton's memo announcing the investment and its relevance to the Hogan litigation: http://jimromenesko.com/2016/01/20/gawker-takes-outside-money-for-the-first-time/ http://jimromenesko.com/2016/01/20/gawker-takes-outside-mone... And here's a Fortune story with a little more background on the investors: http://fortune.com/2016/01/20/gawker-funding/ http://fortune.com/2016/01/20/gawker-funding/ On the "endgame" question, it's worth noting that Gawker's new backer is one of the world's 100 richest people, with an estimated $9.8 billion net worth, according to Forbes. Thiel checks in at just $2 billion or so. If both billionaires want to keep battling, this case could rattle around in a lot of different courts for a long time. We may not know yet who ultimately wins/loses.
    - internaut 10y ago
      This may be one of the worse decisions I've seen in my lifetime. Does Denton not understand the high level ramifications of his decision? Has he any sense of self perseveration not blottoed by cocaine? He is now directly under the watchful eyes. > On the "endgame" question, it's worth noting that Gawker's new backer is one of the world's 100 richest people, with an estimated $9.8 billion net worth, according to Forbes. Thiel checks in at just $2 billion or so. This isn't about money any more. Or laws. > If both billionaires want to keep battling, this case could rattle around in a lot of different courts for a long time. We may not know yet who ultimately wins/loses. Oh we may be sure Nick Denton loses. To be a fly on the wall when Garry Kasparov heard about this!
csallen 10y ago
Yes, Thiel was out for blood, but so what? There's nothing inherently wrong or illegal about feeling vengeful. It's a natural human emotion experienced and indulged by pretty much everyone at some point in time. It's not like we can eradicate it or make it illegal, so complaining about Thiel's goals or feelings seems like a waste of time to me. The issue, as usual, should be with the system itself. Is what happened here unjust? Is it wrong for Gawker to have had to pay the $140M? If you believe so, then your complaint should lie with the court. People should expect justice in court, rather than "typically" avoiding it via settlements and insurance. Our judicial system should be robust enough to make the motivations of a lawsuit's participants irrelevant. No matter how badly Thiel wants to destroy Gawker, they should only be liable for an appropriate amount of damages. If the court failed Gawker there, that's the court's fault. On the flip side, if you believe the settlement was just, then it's Gawker's fault for doing something so bad that it cost them $140M in the first place. EDIT: At least 6 downvotes now, but no replies. If you disagree, can you defend your reasoning at all?
- nohat 10y ago
  I think Gawker was wrong, and deserved to be seriously damaged by this (and many other things), but lets not pretend that this wouldn't have hurt them if they weren't wrong. Defending yourself takes an enormous amount of energy, time, and money. If a billionaire hates you they can fund lots of lawsuits against you that would have otherwise never materialized. This would constantly drain you, even if you win, even if you win costs. Since the billionaire is just funding it, they don't even need to step into the court room to ruin your life. In this case Thiel waited (probably) until Gawker had done something particularly bad (at least liability wise). That's good, but its easy to see what someone of his resources could choose to do with no apparent repercussions. Of course this is disturbing. The fact that our court system is abusable in this fashion doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the individuals who might so abuse it. The article took this case as proof and omen way beyond what it actually shows, but its not nothing.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    So your complaint is that Thiel could have done something else than what he did, and that would have been bad? In reality Thiel didn't abuse the court system with meritless cases. Had he done that, I would also have been disturbed. But since he didn't, it's hard for me to get upset about it.
tetrep 10y ago
I don't want to directly comment on Thiel's actions, but one of the most annoying things in court cases that I care about is when it reaches a settlement, preventing precedent from being set, and allowing other actors to do the same thing as the defendants, knowing that somebody else is going to need to bring them to court in order for them to be held accountable. Settlement in cases can be a greedy/short term out that allows the same injustice the plaintiffs suffered to be perpetrated against others.
- internaut 10y ago
  I thought this was the common complaint about settlements, which is why it confuses me that people are complaining in this case that the purpose of a civil court lawsuit is to extract the largest settlement. Example: "The legal system has certain informal but crucial checks and balances in it. One of them is that the cost and uncertainty of litigation make it in everyone's interest to settle, and in addition insurance creates incentives to settle. A third party purposely removing those incentives distorts the process." - CPLX P.S. No witchhunt being started CPLX, just confused by your position.
fleitz 10y ago
You can tell it's a hit piece because having a vendetta against someone outing a gay man is something most people would find perfectly acceptable and ruins the narrative.
CPLX 10y ago
Precisely. The legal system has certain informal but crucial checks and balances in it. One of them is that the cost and uncertainty of litigation make it in everyone's interest to settle, and in addition insurance creates incentives to settle. A third party purposely removing those incentives distorts the process. Also to this general point, another check and balance for civil litigation are the reputational and discovery risks. With very few exceptions we require proceedings to be public, meaning that a plaintiff has to be willing to publically stand behind his action, and we allow defendants to have very broad discovery rights, to inspect the books and communications of a plaintiff. Both of these are disincentives to filing a revenge based lawsuit -- as opposed to an action primarily to recover monetary damages -- and these were perverted as well by having a hidden third party who managed to evade that scrutiny during the proceeding. There is a reason why vendetta based litigation is not all that common, and formal and informal checks and balances are a big part of it. As an aside, if I were in Peter Thiel's camp right now I would hope to God he's all paid up with his taxes, doesn't have any angry lovers or ex-employees out there, and isn't engaged in any unethical or embarrassing activities, given that he now almost certainly has a lot of investigative journalism firepower pointed at him.
- csallen 10y ago
  You're advocating a flawed legal system. You're basically saying: The legal system can be abused by any rich person with a vendetta, therefore shame on Thiel for abusing it. However, it's not feasible (or desirable) to put an end to rich people or vendettas. Thus, isn't the best option here to fix the legal system itself?
  - CPLX 10y ago
    There is no system on this planet that cannot be at least somewhat abused by a person with a billion dollars in resources and no ethical constraints.
    - csallen 10y ago
      I agree. You're totally right. But does the fact that we're not perfect mean that we shouldn't strive to be? Is there any evidence that our court system doesn't have room for improvement? What worries me is that when people see a case like this, they take it for granted that our court system is abusable and denigrate the abuser. But any system that incentives abuse is itself a corrupt and flawed system that will give rise to more abusers. Imagine, for example, a country with no laws against murder.
st3v3r 10y ago
The subject of the case really isn't a red herring.
internaut 10y ago
> The subject of the case is a red herring. Agreed. It matters to Terry, but doesn't explain what's happening now. > Thiel was out for blood, and he used his money in someone else's case to get it. Correct. The 'Thielite' side I'm on doesn't dissent from this. > It focused on maximizing the damage to Gawker, which isn't what civil court is typically supposed to do. Not so sure about that. I think you may be extending your ideas about civil lawsuits over the edge. I've never heard it said before now that one of a civil court's functions was to maximize the settlement. Presumably civil courts existed without insurance companies being around at some point, so maybe not. I'm open to having my mind changed though, should you find evidence in law of a civil court's function being described in that way.
Zak 10y ago
I won't pretend Thiel's behavior in this matter is unambiguously good, but Gawker is a habitual bad actor, assisting stalkers, violating privacy on numerous occasions for reasons most reasonable people wouldn't consider newsworthy and offering bounties for stolen property. Several of those behaviors are illegal, and the last is likely criminal. Viewed in a favorable light, Thiel wants to discourage gawker and companies like it by offsetting some of the risk of taking legal action. Viewed in an unfavorable light, he wants to take revenge on Gawker for invading his privacy and that of his friends. Even in the worst case, I can't say I blame him.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
EdHominem 10y ago
> even removing a claim that allowed insurance to cover damages. Yeah, ensuring that the guilty party had to pay out of their own pocket.

by bduerst 10y ago

GCA10 10y ago

Let's not forget that Gawker monied up ahead of the trial, too. In a January 2016 staff memo, Gawker CEO Nick Denton described an investment by Columbus Nova (controlled by Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselburg) as a way to make sure his company had the resources for a full-stakes court battle. The judge in the case had recommended mediation, but both sides really wanted a big trial. So they got one.

bduerst 10y ago
Was Nova involved in the court case, or have a personal vendetta against Hogan?
internaut 10y ago
Interesting. Can you provide sources and also what do you think the end game is? Did Nick Denton know he was going to lose and go ahead anyway? Or was he just unable to conceive of losing?
- GCA10 10y ago
  Glad to oblige on sources. Here's a copy of Nick Denton's memo announcing the investment and its relevance to the Hogan litigation: http://jimromenesko.com/2016/01/20/gawker-takes-outside-money-for-the-first-time/ http://jimromenesko.com/2016/01/20/gawker-takes-outside-mone... And here's a Fortune story with a little more background on the investors: http://fortune.com/2016/01/20/gawker-funding/ http://fortune.com/2016/01/20/gawker-funding/ On the "endgame" question, it's worth noting that Gawker's new backer is one of the world's 100 richest people, with an estimated $9.8 billion net worth, according to Forbes. Thiel checks in at just $2 billion or so. If both billionaires want to keep battling, this case could rattle around in a lot of different courts for a long time. We may not know yet who ultimately wins/loses.
  - internaut 10y ago
    This may be one of the worse decisions I've seen in my lifetime. Does Denton not understand the high level ramifications of his decision? Has he any sense of self perseveration not blottoed by cocaine? He is now directly under the watchful eyes. > On the "endgame" question, it's worth noting that Gawker's new backer is one of the world's 100 richest people, with an estimated $9.8 billion net worth, according to Forbes. Thiel checks in at just $2 billion or so. This isn't about money any more. Or laws. > If both billionaires want to keep battling, this case could rattle around in a lot of different courts for a long time. We may not know yet who ultimately wins/loses. Oh we may be sure Nick Denton loses. To be a fly on the wall when Garry Kasparov heard about this!

csallen 10y ago

Yes, Thiel was out for blood, but so what? There's nothing inherently wrong or illegal about feeling vengeful. It's a natural human emotion experienced and indulged by pretty much everyone at some point in time. It's not like we can eradicate it or make it illegal, so complaining about Thiel's goals or feelings seems like a waste of time to me. The issue, as usual, should be with the system itself. Is what happened here unjust? Is it wrong for Gawker to have had to pay the $140M? If you believe so, then your complaint should lie with the court. People should expect justice in court, rather than "typically" avoiding it via settlements and insurance. Our judicial system should be robust enough to make the motivations of a lawsuit's participants irrelevant. No matter how badly Thiel wants to destroy Gawker, they should only be liable for an appropriate amount of damages. If the court failed Gawker there, that's the court's fault. On the flip side, if you believe the settlement was just, then it's Gawker's fault for doing something so bad that it cost them $140M in the first place. EDIT: At least 6 downvotes now, but no replies. If you disagree, can you defend your reasoning at all?

nohat 10y ago
I think Gawker was wrong, and deserved to be seriously damaged by this (and many other things), but lets not pretend that this wouldn't have hurt them if they weren't wrong. Defending yourself takes an enormous amount of energy, time, and money. If a billionaire hates you they can fund lots of lawsuits against you that would have otherwise never materialized. This would constantly drain you, even if you win, even if you win costs. Since the billionaire is just funding it, they don't even need to step into the court room to ruin your life. In this case Thiel waited (probably) until Gawker had done something particularly bad (at least liability wise). That's good, but its easy to see what someone of his resources could choose to do with no apparent repercussions. Of course this is disturbing. The fact that our court system is abusable in this fashion doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the individuals who might so abuse it. The article took this case as proof and omen way beyond what it actually shows, but its not nothing.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  So your complaint is that Thiel could have done something else than what he did, and that would have been bad? In reality Thiel didn't abuse the court system with meritless cases. Had he done that, I would also have been disturbed. But since he didn't, it's hard for me to get upset about it.

tetrep 10y ago

I don't want to directly comment on Thiel's actions, but one of the most annoying things in court cases that I care about is when it reaches a settlement, preventing precedent from being set, and allowing other actors to do the same thing as the defendants, knowing that somebody else is going to need to bring them to court in order for them to be held accountable. Settlement in cases can be a greedy/short term out that allows the same injustice the plaintiffs suffered to be perpetrated against others.

internaut 10y ago
I thought this was the common complaint about settlements, which is why it confuses me that people are complaining in this case that the purpose of a civil court lawsuit is to extract the largest settlement. Example: "The legal system has certain informal but crucial checks and balances in it. One of them is that the cost and uncertainty of litigation make it in everyone's interest to settle, and in addition insurance creates incentives to settle. A third party purposely removing those incentives distorts the process." - CPLX P.S. No witchhunt being started CPLX, just confused by your position.

fleitz 10y ago

You can tell it's a hit piece because having a vendetta against someone outing a gay man is something most people would find perfectly acceptable and ruins the narrative.

CPLX 10y ago

Precisely. The legal system has certain informal but crucial checks and balances in it. One of them is that the cost and uncertainty of litigation make it in everyone's interest to settle, and in addition insurance creates incentives to settle. A third party purposely removing those incentives distorts the process. Also to this general point, another check and balance for civil litigation are the reputational and discovery risks. With very few exceptions we require proceedings to be public, meaning that a plaintiff has to be willing to publically stand behind his action, and we allow defendants to have very broad discovery rights, to inspect the books and communications of a plaintiff. Both of these are disincentives to filing a revenge based lawsuit -- as opposed to an action primarily to recover monetary damages -- and these were perverted as well by having a hidden third party who managed to evade that scrutiny during the proceeding. There is a reason why vendetta based litigation is not all that common, and formal and informal checks and balances are a big part of it. As an aside, if I were in Peter Thiel's camp right now I would hope to God he's all paid up with his taxes, doesn't have any angry lovers or ex-employees out there, and isn't engaged in any unethical or embarrassing activities, given that he now almost certainly has a lot of investigative journalism firepower pointed at him.

csallen 10y ago
You're advocating a flawed legal system. You're basically saying: The legal system can be abused by any rich person with a vendetta, therefore shame on Thiel for abusing it. However, it's not feasible (or desirable) to put an end to rich people or vendettas. Thus, isn't the best option here to fix the legal system itself?
- CPLX 10y ago
  There is no system on this planet that cannot be at least somewhat abused by a person with a billion dollars in resources and no ethical constraints.
  - csallen 10y ago
    I agree. You're totally right. But does the fact that we're not perfect mean that we shouldn't strive to be? Is there any evidence that our court system doesn't have room for improvement? What worries me is that when people see a case like this, they take it for granted that our court system is abusable and denigrate the abuser. But any system that incentives abuse is itself a corrupt and flawed system that will give rise to more abusers. Imagine, for example, a country with no laws against murder.

st3v3r 10y ago

The subject of the case really isn't a red herring.

internaut 10y ago

> The subject of the case is a red herring. Agreed. It matters to Terry, but doesn't explain what's happening now. > Thiel was out for blood, and he used his money in someone else's case to get it. Correct. The 'Thielite' side I'm on doesn't dissent from this. > It focused on maximizing the damage to Gawker, which isn't what civil court is typically supposed to do. Not so sure about that. I think you may be extending your ideas about civil lawsuits over the edge. I've never heard it said before now that one of a civil court's functions was to maximize the settlement. Presumably civil courts existed without insurance companies being around at some point, so maybe not. I'm open to having my mind changed though, should you find evidence in law of a civil court's function being described in that way.

Zak 10y ago

I won't pretend Thiel's behavior in this matter is unambiguously good, but Gawker is a habitual bad actor, assisting stalkers, violating privacy on numerous occasions for reasons most reasonable people wouldn't consider newsworthy and offering bounties for stolen property. Several of those behaviors are illegal, and the last is likely criminal. Viewed in a favorable light, Thiel wants to discourage gawker and companies like it by offsetting some of the risk of taking legal action. Viewed in an unfavorable light, he wants to take revenge on Gawker for invading his privacy and that of his friends. Even in the worst case, I can't say I blame him.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

EdHominem 10y ago

> even removing a claim that allowed insurance to cover damages. Yeah, ensuring that the guilty party had to pay out of their own pocket.