6 ms·

Am I the only one who thinks Thiel should be left out of the story of Gawker and HH sextape? In the light of a lawful verdict his motive of bankrolling the laws

by dandare 10y ago

Am I the only one who thinks Thiel should be left out of the story of Gawker and HH sextape? In the light of a lawful verdict his motive of bankrolling the lawsuit is completely irrelevant. The only discussion where Thiels involvement is relevant is the one about how a commoner (or millionaire in the case of HH) needs a help of a samaritan/avenger billionaire to get justice.

lifeisstillgood 10y ago
Err, yes. Thiel was completely out of order backing legal suits in order to achieve a "political" end. If he was not suing an unsavoury gossip-monger the discussion around this would be vastly different. Irrespective of the legality this was a spiteful campaign at odds with the stated case(s) involved. Yes he should be held to account for it. Edit: change to clarify middle paragraph. Is this a UK/US thing? Being outed in the UK was a political action for sometime in the 80s but has more or less had its time - it has no shock value and little political value. Or is the focus on the supposed cause of thiels actions the irrelevant part?
- nier 10y ago
  Can’t find the source, but I read somewhere that it was also about investor relations in the Middle East.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Imagine that Gawker owners and editors hated, say, puppies and out of spite Thiel funded a bunch of puppy shelters. Would you say he should be held in account for it? Probably not, because despite the bad motivation, funding shelters is considered a Good Thing. To me, the problem when we say Thiel should be held in account for funding the lawsuit is that we're implicitly admitting the court can be used as a weapon, and we're putting the onus on him not to use it, instead of putting it on the court not to allow itself to be used as such. Funding a lawsuit should, at worst, cost some time and maybe some money in legal fees to the defendant, and at best it should help to achieve justice.
- ferrari8608 10y ago
  It's a shame your comment has fallen victim to the disagree button. While I disagree with you, which I'll get to in a moment, it greatly disappoints me how some of the supposed intellectual thinkers on this site would like to hide your comment because they disagree with it. I didn't find it to be spam or inflammatory, which is to my understanding the type of post the down arrow is supposed to be used for. Anyway, what he did was legal. There's nothing to be held accountable for. Whether or not it's right or wrong in general is not really a topic I'm interested in. Since the legal process worked as it's supposed to, I believe this to be what you might call right though. Gawker has had this coming. If they hadn't made it so easy by publishing garbage, Theil would have been powerless.
  - Retra 10y ago
    It's a shame that you think the down-vote button means something other than what it is used to mean.
  - lifeisstillgood 10y ago
    Is it legal to fund another parties court case, to influence their decisions (why did hogan drop insurance-covered issues?) and do so without knowledge of court? I am not sure those are clear answers - we shall see.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  "Err, yes. Thiel was completely out of order backing legal suits in order to achieve a "political" end." Would you say the same thing about the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Organization of Woman, and Lambda Legal -- all of whom have litigated to achieve political ends.
  - lifeisstillgood 10y ago
    There is a vast vast difference between secretly and openly backing legal action. If thiel had been in the court with a "privacy for billionaires" banner then I would not nearly be so concerned. But it was mere accident - years of litigation without any indication he was bank rolling this stuff, the courts did not know - that is unacceptable. Courts must know this stuff And political is not quite the right term - this seems way more personal and vindictive
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Are you actually allowed to go to a courtroom in the U.S. with banners? I find that strange.
wpietri 10y ago
It wouldn't have happened without him spending millions, so his action is entirely relevant. His goal, depending on who you talk to, was either to destroy Gawker or destroy the business model that funds Gawker, so as to prevent the general problem. I find it very weird that someone would come to a site about startups and suggest it irrelevant that a billionaire is secretly trying to destroy an entire business model (or maybe just a company).
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
  It also wouldn't have happened if Gawker had not broken privacy laws, as determined by a judge and jury. Thiel's millions had nothing to do with their decision.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    Their decision (which is subject to appeal) would not have happened without Thiel's millions. Why? The lawsuit might not have happened without that. It certainly wouldn't have been as well funded, and funding levels influence outcomes. It might also have turned out differently if not for Thiel's secrecy. Many people have pointed out Gawker's unforced errors during the trial. If they had known that it was not Bollea alone they were fighting but also a vindictive billionaire, would they have been more circumspect? I expect so. That might not have changed the verdict, but it certainly could have changed the size of the award. And let's not forget that Thiel apparently influenced strategy. This was all uncovered, after all, because of certain unusual choices made by Bollea that reduced the potential size of his award but increased the chances of destroying Gawker.
    - GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
      >This was all uncovered, after all, because of certain unusual choices made by Bollea that reduced the potential size of his award but increased the chances of destroying Gawker. I find this objection to be bizarre. I am aware of no ethical or legal rules that require the wronged to structure the suit filed for the well-being or convenience of the wrongdoer. If Thiel and Bollea made an agreement to arrange the claims in a particular way in exchange for funding of the suit, I fail to see any problem there.
hackuser 10y ago
> In the light of a lawful verdict his motive of bankrolling the lawsuit is completely irrelevant. That's only true if you believe judicial outcomes don't depend on the financial resources of the parties involved. That's the ideal, but I don't believe it.
- icebraining 10y ago
  But should we put that responsibility on Thiel, or on the courts?
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I don't see how Thiel escapes responsibility for his actions; nobody forced him to do it. The judicial system of course is culpable, but it's much bigger than the courts themselves: Voters, politicians, legislatures, the legal industry, etc.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      But force him to do what? If he believes that the lawsuit is meritorious - as many do, even here - why should he avoid helping?
      - hackuser 10y ago
        Because the law and its outcomes shouldn't depend on the beliefs of one wealthy person. It's just coincidence that you (or whoever) agree with him this time; next time he may be persecuting someone you think is innocent. But the fact that you or I think they are innocent or guilty shouldn't even be relevant. We're not the jury, we didn't hear attorneys from both sides in a legal process, etc. We need to support a fair process, the rule of law not the rule of wealthy men or the angry mob. I may think someone is guilty of a crime, but that doesn't mean I should shoot them or otherwise abuse them.
    - fthssht 10y ago
      The problem lies that nobody thought the lawsuit against Gawker was a miscarrage of justice until they learned a billionaire was involved. Its become more about fear of rich people than the facts of this specific case and this specific company.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
You are not. Whether the money came from Mother Theresa or Atilla the Hun, the source of the funding for the suit is irrelevant to the merits of the case itself.
- mordant 10y ago
  Wrong. Barratry and maintenance have been frowned upon for centuries for good reason. Relaxing restrictions against them was a big mistake, IMHO.
SkyMarshal 10y ago
Grellas had a good comment on the larger legal/ethical issues Thiel's involvement raises: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878742
mordant 10y ago
I despise Gawker. But I despise barratry and maintenance even more, and believe that relaxing restrictions against them is a major failure of modern American jurisprudence.
jwebb99 10y ago
> Am I the only one who thinks Thiel should be left out of the story of Gawker and HH sextape? It would be bizarre if it wasn't mentioned.

by dandare 10y ago

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

Err, yes. Thiel was completely out of order backing legal suits in order to achieve a "political" end. If he was not suing an unsavoury gossip-monger the discussion around this would be vastly different. Irrespective of the legality this was a spiteful campaign at odds with the stated case(s) involved. Yes he should be held to account for it. Edit: change to clarify middle paragraph. Is this a UK/US thing? Being outed in the UK was a political action for sometime in the 80s but has more or less had its time - it has no shock value and little political value. Or is the focus on the supposed cause of thiels actions the irrelevant part?

nier 10y ago
Can’t find the source, but I read somewhere that it was also about investor relations in the Middle East.
icebraining 10y ago
Imagine that Gawker owners and editors hated, say, puppies and out of spite Thiel funded a bunch of puppy shelters. Would you say he should be held in account for it? Probably not, because despite the bad motivation, funding shelters is considered a Good Thing. To me, the problem when we say Thiel should be held in account for funding the lawsuit is that we're implicitly admitting the court can be used as a weapon, and we're putting the onus on him not to use it, instead of putting it on the court not to allow itself to be used as such. Funding a lawsuit should, at worst, cost some time and maybe some money in legal fees to the defendant, and at best it should help to achieve justice.
ferrari8608 10y ago
It's a shame your comment has fallen victim to the disagree button. While I disagree with you, which I'll get to in a moment, it greatly disappoints me how some of the supposed intellectual thinkers on this site would like to hide your comment because they disagree with it. I didn't find it to be spam or inflammatory, which is to my understanding the type of post the down arrow is supposed to be used for. Anyway, what he did was legal. There's nothing to be held accountable for. Whether or not it's right or wrong in general is not really a topic I'm interested in. Since the legal process worked as it's supposed to, I believe this to be what you might call right though. Gawker has had this coming. If they hadn't made it so easy by publishing garbage, Theil would have been powerless.
- Retra 10y ago
  It's a shame that you think the down-vote button means something other than what it is used to mean.
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  Is it legal to fund another parties court case, to influence their decisions (why did hogan drop insurance-covered issues?) and do so without knowledge of court? I am not sure those are clear answers - we shall see.
bradleyjg 10y ago
"Err, yes. Thiel was completely out of order backing legal suits in order to achieve a "political" end." Would you say the same thing about the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Organization of Woman, and Lambda Legal -- all of whom have litigated to achieve political ends.
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  There is a vast vast difference between secretly and openly backing legal action. If thiel had been in the court with a "privacy for billionaires" banner then I would not nearly be so concerned. But it was mere accident - years of litigation without any indication he was bank rolling this stuff, the courts did not know - that is unacceptable. Courts must know this stuff And political is not quite the right term - this seems way more personal and vindictive
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Are you actually allowed to go to a courtroom in the U.S. with banners? I find that strange.

wpietri 10y ago

It wouldn't have happened without him spending millions, so his action is entirely relevant. His goal, depending on who you talk to, was either to destroy Gawker or destroy the business model that funds Gawker, so as to prevent the general problem. I find it very weird that someone would come to a site about startups and suggest it irrelevant that a billionaire is secretly trying to destroy an entire business model (or maybe just a company).

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
It also wouldn't have happened if Gawker had not broken privacy laws, as determined by a judge and jury. Thiel's millions had nothing to do with their decision.
- wpietri 10y ago
  Their decision (which is subject to appeal) would not have happened without Thiel's millions. Why? The lawsuit might not have happened without that. It certainly wouldn't have been as well funded, and funding levels influence outcomes. It might also have turned out differently if not for Thiel's secrecy. Many people have pointed out Gawker's unforced errors during the trial. If they had known that it was not Bollea alone they were fighting but also a vindictive billionaire, would they have been more circumspect? I expect so. That might not have changed the verdict, but it certainly could have changed the size of the award. And let's not forget that Thiel apparently influenced strategy. This was all uncovered, after all, because of certain unusual choices made by Bollea that reduced the potential size of his award but increased the chances of destroying Gawker.
  - GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
    >This was all uncovered, after all, because of certain unusual choices made by Bollea that reduced the potential size of his award but increased the chances of destroying Gawker. I find this objection to be bizarre. I am aware of no ethical or legal rules that require the wronged to structure the suit filed for the well-being or convenience of the wrongdoer. If Thiel and Bollea made an agreement to arrange the claims in a particular way in exchange for funding of the suit, I fail to see any problem there.

hackuser 10y ago

> In the light of a lawful verdict his motive of bankrolling the lawsuit is completely irrelevant. That's only true if you believe judicial outcomes don't depend on the financial resources of the parties involved. That's the ideal, but I don't believe it.

icebraining 10y ago
But should we put that responsibility on Thiel, or on the courts?
- hackuser 10y ago
  I don't see how Thiel escapes responsibility for his actions; nobody forced him to do it. The judicial system of course is culpable, but it's much bigger than the courts themselves: Voters, politicians, legislatures, the legal industry, etc.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    But force him to do what? If he believes that the lawsuit is meritorious - as many do, even here - why should he avoid helping?
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Because the law and its outcomes shouldn't depend on the beliefs of one wealthy person. It's just coincidence that you (or whoever) agree with him this time; next time he may be persecuting someone you think is innocent. But the fact that you or I think they are innocent or guilty shouldn't even be relevant. We're not the jury, we didn't hear attorneys from both sides in a legal process, etc. We need to support a fair process, the rule of law not the rule of wealthy men or the angry mob. I may think someone is guilty of a crime, but that doesn't mean I should shoot them or otherwise abuse them.
  - fthssht 10y ago
    The problem lies that nobody thought the lawsuit against Gawker was a miscarrage of justice until they learned a billionaire was involved. Its become more about fear of rich people than the facts of this specific case and this specific company.

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago

You are not. Whether the money came from Mother Theresa or Atilla the Hun, the source of the funding for the suit is irrelevant to the merits of the case itself.

mordant 10y ago
Wrong. Barratry and maintenance have been frowned upon for centuries for good reason. Relaxing restrictions against them was a big mistake, IMHO.

SkyMarshal 10y ago

Grellas had a good comment on the larger legal/ethical issues Thiel's involvement raises: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878742

mordant 10y ago

I despise Gawker. But I despise barratry and maintenance even more, and believe that relaxing restrictions against them is a major failure of modern American jurisprudence.

jwebb99 10y ago

> Am I the only one who thinks Thiel should be left out of the story of Gawker and HH sextape? It would be bizarre if it wasn't mentioned.