3 ms·

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

by 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.

by GVIrish 10y ago

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.