5 ms·

I'm a free speech absolutist, but what precedent does this set that's new? The person that leaked the "Fappening" items is also being prosecuted, why should a m

I'm a free speech absolutist, but what precedent does this set that's new? The person that leaked the "Fappening" items is also being prosecuted, why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture.

jshevek 10y ago
Yes, exactly. After Thiel was revealed as the financier, some in the media saw an opportunity to re-caste the narrative in a way that they knew would appeal to our hatred of the rich and our fear for their abuse of power. The story became all about Thiel the alleged bully, the abuser of power, his petty grudge, etc etc. It was effective manipulation, just look at the comments here from those who think this 'sets a bad precedent'. Never mind that Thiel's side was right and Gawker was wrong. Never mind that the mechanism employed to achieve justice here is basically the same mechanism that the ACLU uses.
- deong 10y ago
  Firstly, the ACLU is open about it. There's no way to know, but my guess is that had Thiel stepped up in public a few years ago and said, "Gawker is a terrible gossip rag that needs to be taught a lesson -- contact me if they've wronged you too, and I'll help you mount a case", people would be less angry at him. People don't like the idea that a shadowy cabal can run things behind the scenes without any public scrutiny. Secondly, the ACLU does not generally appear vindictive. The ACLU looks to fund cases with a motive that people generally understand to be making things better for American society. Thiel may claim that removing Gawker from the face of the earth is a public service, but given the obvious history, that seems laughable. He appears vindictive, not altruistic.
  - partiallypro 10y ago
    The ACLU is only public about it because part of their mission is to raise awareness. They have PR blitzes to publicize new cases they are taking on.
smt88 10y ago
> No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta. Regardless of the outcome, many of us are dismayed that Thiel was able to weaponize the justice system using huge amounts of money. > why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? The tape of Hogan had racist comments on it, which are arguably in the public interest (since Hogan is a business(man) and consumers should be able to know about his character). It was stupid and possibly illegal of them to include the sex part of the tape, but was it worth $100M? Did that part of the tape harm Hogan at all?
- nickff 10y ago
  There is a name for weaponization of the legal system, it is called 'lawfare', and it has been going on a long time. This was a legitimate case, not some strange and arcane proceeding based on a hitherto unknown statute; it may be the case that Thiel was 'woken up' by the post about him, and has since been keeping a lookout to stop Denton's greed from harming more people. Denton isn't running a charity. If Denton had published the tape 'for the public', he wouldn't have included the sex bit; we all know that this was classic Gawker clickbait. Denton obviously only cares about 'disclosure' when it gives him ammunition to use against his opponents, especially when he can profit off of it.
  - whatok 10y ago
    > If Denton had published the tape 'for the public', he wouldn't have included the sex bit; we all know that this was classic Gawker clickbait. Denton obviously only cares about 'disclosure' when it gives him ammunition to use against his opponents, especially when he can profit off of it. 100% agree with this. Publication of the entire tape was not necessary. What would be the difference between publishing that a tape existed or a few screenshots vs the entire tape? Clicks.
- danielweber 10y ago
  If Thiel was funding losing suit after losing suit after losing suit, this would be relevant. But he funded a winning suit. He wasn't pestering them with this suit. It was a 100% legitimate suit. He funded a correct result. You want scary? Even Hulk Hogan doesn't have enough money to fund a correct lawsuit.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Because the fourth estate sees this as a threat to their interests.

jshevek 10y ago

Yes, exactly. After Thiel was revealed as the financier, some in the media saw an opportunity to re-caste the narrative in a way that they knew would appeal to our hatred of the rich and our fear for their abuse of power. The story became all about Thiel the alleged bully, the abuser of power, his petty grudge, etc etc. It was effective manipulation, just look at the comments here from those who think this 'sets a bad precedent'. Never mind that Thiel's side was right and Gawker was wrong. Never mind that the mechanism employed to achieve justice here is basically the same mechanism that the ACLU uses.

deong 10y ago
Firstly, the ACLU is open about it. There's no way to know, but my guess is that had Thiel stepped up in public a few years ago and said, "Gawker is a terrible gossip rag that needs to be taught a lesson -- contact me if they've wronged you too, and I'll help you mount a case", people would be less angry at him. People don't like the idea that a shadowy cabal can run things behind the scenes without any public scrutiny. Secondly, the ACLU does not generally appear vindictive. The ACLU looks to fund cases with a motive that people generally understand to be making things better for American society. Thiel may claim that removing Gawker from the face of the earth is a public service, but given the obvious history, that seems laughable. He appears vindictive, not altruistic.
- partiallypro 10y ago
  The ACLU is only public about it because part of their mission is to raise awareness. They have PR blitzes to publicize new cases they are taking on.

smt88 10y ago

> No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta. Regardless of the outcome, many of us are dismayed that Thiel was able to weaponize the justice system using huge amounts of money. > why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? The tape of Hogan had racist comments on it, which are arguably in the public interest (since Hogan is a business(man) and consumers should be able to know about his character). It was stupid and possibly illegal of them to include the sex part of the tape, but was it worth $100M? Did that part of the tape harm Hogan at all?

nickff 10y ago
There is a name for weaponization of the legal system, it is called 'lawfare', and it has been going on a long time. This was a legitimate case, not some strange and arcane proceeding based on a hitherto unknown statute; it may be the case that Thiel was 'woken up' by the post about him, and has since been keeping a lookout to stop Denton's greed from harming more people. Denton isn't running a charity. If Denton had published the tape 'for the public', he wouldn't have included the sex bit; we all know that this was classic Gawker clickbait. Denton obviously only cares about 'disclosure' when it gives him ammunition to use against his opponents, especially when he can profit off of it.
- whatok 10y ago
  > If Denton had published the tape 'for the public', he wouldn't have included the sex bit; we all know that this was classic Gawker clickbait. Denton obviously only cares about 'disclosure' when it gives him ammunition to use against his opponents, especially when he can profit off of it. 100% agree with this. Publication of the entire tape was not necessary. What would be the difference between publishing that a tape existed or a few screenshots vs the entire tape? Clicks.
danielweber 10y ago
If Thiel was funding losing suit after losing suit after losing suit, this would be relevant. But he funded a winning suit. He wasn't pestering them with this suit. It was a 100% legitimate suit. He funded a correct result. You want scary? Even Hulk Hogan doesn't have enough money to fund a correct lawsuit.

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago

Because the fourth estate sees this as a threat to their interests.