8 ms·

The issue I have with it is that money from an external source that had nothing to do with the suit was funnelled in to use it as a weapon. Thiel had an issue

by mhurron 10y ago

The issue I have with it is that money from an external source that had nothing to do with the suit was funnelled in to use it as a weapon. Thiel had an issue with Gawker, Thiel should have taken it to Gawker.

GVIrish 10y ago
Why have a problem with that? If Gawker was not in the wrong that would've been money wasted. It's not like Hogan/Thiel wore Gawker out by whittling them down with frivolous lawsuits until they couldn't defend themselves anymore.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  That's precisely what Thiel's doing though -- He just hit the jackpot with the Hogan amount. He's also funding several other suits against Gawker including one from someone who claimed to have invented email. He's like a terrible patent troll for journalism. The Gizmodo article that Thiel thinks is worth suing Gawker over: http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-invent-email http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-inv...
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    Ah ok, that is not something I've seen mentioned anywhere else. Still, Gawker is/was big enough that several frivolous lawsuits would've been unlikely to cause bankruptcy if none of them resulted in an adverse judgment. I have to think Thiel's goal was more to fire multiple shots and hope one finds its mark.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    What jackpot? They could have gotten the insurance payout. Except they dropped that part of the suit specifically so Gawker could not use the insurance it had purchased for this reason.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      The jackpot in the sense that Thiel's goal was to litigate Gawker into bankruptcy and the Hogan case played out perfectly for him.
- aab0 10y ago
  Thiel's plan was exactly to wear down Gawker by frivolous lawsuits until either they collapsed or he lucked out; that's why his legal team was searching through thousands of articles looking for people they could contact to drum up a case or fund an existing case, including the 'father of email' case. Court cases are not deterministic noise-free processes.
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    How is this different than the ACLU looking for an ideal test case for a civil rights issue?
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      The ACLU typically expands rights and free speech while this is somewhere on the opposite side of the spectrum.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Citing the ACLU, if Hulk Hogan’s sex tape was somehow newsworthy, then distributing it on the internet would come under the protections of the First Amendment, and Gawker would have a right to publish it. But the jury found that this case was not about the Hulk as a public figure and that the video had no news value. The Hulk, therefore, enjoys the same rights to privacy as everyone else.
        mikeyouse 10y ago
        Yes, a Florida jury decided that Hulk Hogan wasn't a public figure but that the damage to his career from a sex tape was worth $55 million. Do those things seem slightly contradictory to you?
        icebraining 10y ago
        Florida jury decided that Hulk Hogan wasn't a public figure No, it's more nuanced than that. What the ACLU is saying is that there's a difference between Hulk Hogan (the public figure) and Terry Bollea (the person), and that the jury found the video wasn't about the public figure. As for me, I can appreciate that this feels flimsy - how can one know where the line is drawn? - yet I think the distinction exists in practice and it'd be a failure of justice to deny it.
bra-ket 10y ago
It's called 'maintenance' and it was made illegal under common law of England 500 years ago http://overlawyered.com/2016/05/champerty-maintenance-explainer-gawkerhoganthiel-edition/ http://overlawyered.com/2016/05/champerty-maintenance-explai...
- icebraining 10y ago
  Yes, in a time before judicial independence and separation of powers were implemented.
acheron 10y ago
The issue I have with it is that money from an external source that had nothing to do with the suit was funnelled in This is incredibly common, e.g. it's basically the entire job description of the ACLU. Why is it different in this case?
- smt88 10y ago
  > Why is it different in this case? The ACLU is a charitable organization, and its cases have an ideological consistency. Thiel was just trying to find anything he could on Gawker (or just bury them in frivolous lawsuits if he couldn't). The cases didn't have any ideological consistency except "kill Gawker".
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Because the ACLU does it in the open, rather than in secret?
  - strictnein 10y ago
    Rights aren't only protected if you exercise them publicly.
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      No, but one of the reasons "maintenance" is or was illegal is because the defendant has a right to know their accuser/opponent and their motivations, hence discovery and other pre-trial proceedings, so they can best defend themselves.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
So how do you propose preventing that without outlawing, for example, the ACLU, NAACP, etc.?
cm2187 10y ago
But isn't it the case of any civil liberty lawyer rushing on a case to push his agenda or create a jurisprudence?
GraemeLion 10y ago
The other side to that argument is, people who are wronged by Gawker need at least a billionaire to be able to get their day in court. It should concern you that it took money from an outside source to get an alledged wrong by a massive company to litigated in front of a jury. That should be very concerning. As for Thiel and Gawker, they're both bullies, and bullies beating the shit out of each other is just fine by me.

by mhurron 10y ago

GVIrish 10y ago

Why have a problem with that? If Gawker was not in the wrong that would've been money wasted. It's not like Hogan/Thiel wore Gawker out by whittling them down with frivolous lawsuits until they couldn't defend themselves anymore.

mikeyouse 10y ago
That's precisely what Thiel's doing though -- He just hit the jackpot with the Hogan amount. He's also funding several other suits against Gawker including one from someone who claimed to have invented email. He's like a terrible patent troll for journalism. The Gizmodo article that Thiel thinks is worth suing Gawker over: http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-invent-email http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-inv...
- GVIrish 10y ago
  Ah ok, that is not something I've seen mentioned anywhere else. Still, Gawker is/was big enough that several frivolous lawsuits would've been unlikely to cause bankruptcy if none of them resulted in an adverse judgment. I have to think Thiel's goal was more to fire multiple shots and hope one finds its mark.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  What jackpot? They could have gotten the insurance payout. Except they dropped that part of the suit specifically so Gawker could not use the insurance it had purchased for this reason.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    The jackpot in the sense that Thiel's goal was to litigate Gawker into bankruptcy and the Hogan case played out perfectly for him.
aab0 10y ago
Thiel's plan was exactly to wear down Gawker by frivolous lawsuits until either they collapsed or he lucked out; that's why his legal team was searching through thousands of articles looking for people they could contact to drum up a case or fund an existing case, including the 'father of email' case. Court cases are not deterministic noise-free processes.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  How is this different than the ACLU looking for an ideal test case for a civil rights issue?
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    The ACLU typically expands rights and free speech while this is somewhere on the opposite side of the spectrum.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Citing the ACLU, if Hulk Hogan’s sex tape was somehow newsworthy, then distributing it on the internet would come under the protections of the First Amendment, and Gawker would have a right to publish it. But the jury found that this case was not about the Hulk as a public figure and that the video had no news value. The Hulk, therefore, enjoys the same rights to privacy as everyone else.
      - mikeyouse 10y ago
        Yes, a Florida jury decided that Hulk Hogan wasn't a public figure but that the damage to his career from a sex tape was worth $55 million. Do those things seem slightly contradictory to you?
        icebraining 10y ago
        Florida jury decided that Hulk Hogan wasn't a public figure No, it's more nuanced than that. What the ACLU is saying is that there's a difference between Hulk Hogan (the public figure) and Terry Bollea (the person), and that the jury found the video wasn't about the public figure. As for me, I can appreciate that this feels flimsy - how can one know where the line is drawn? - yet I think the distinction exists in practice and it'd be a failure of justice to deny it.

bra-ket 10y ago

It's called 'maintenance' and it was made illegal under common law of England 500 years ago http://overlawyered.com/2016/05/champerty-maintenance-explainer-gawkerhoganthiel-edition/ http://overlawyered.com/2016/05/champerty-maintenance-explai...

icebraining 10y ago
Yes, in a time before judicial independence and separation of powers were implemented.

acheron 10y ago

The issue I have with it is that money from an external source that had nothing to do with the suit was funnelled in This is incredibly common, e.g. it's basically the entire job description of the ACLU. Why is it different in this case?

smt88 10y ago
> Why is it different in this case? The ACLU is a charitable organization, and its cases have an ideological consistency. Thiel was just trying to find anything he could on Gawker (or just bury them in frivolous lawsuits if he couldn't). The cases didn't have any ideological consistency except "kill Gawker".
FireBeyond 10y ago
Because the ACLU does it in the open, rather than in secret?
- strictnein 10y ago
  Rights aren't only protected if you exercise them publicly.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    No, but one of the reasons "maintenance" is or was illegal is because the defendant has a right to know their accuser/opponent and their motivations, hence discovery and other pre-trial proceedings, so they can best defend themselves.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago

So how do you propose preventing that without outlawing, for example, the ACLU, NAACP, etc.?

cm2187 10y ago

But isn't it the case of any civil liberty lawyer rushing on a case to push his agenda or create a jurisprudence?

GraemeLion 10y ago

The other side to that argument is, people who are wronged by Gawker need at least a billionaire to be able to get their day in court. It should concern you that it took money from an outside source to get an alledged wrong by a massive company to litigated in front of a jury. That should be very concerning. As for Thiel and Gawker, they're both bullies, and bullies beating the shit out of each other is just fine by me.