30 ms·

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

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.
  - internaut 10y ago
    > 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. I have spoken to a chap on here who apparently thought it was a legal obligation on the defendant to seek the highest financial settlement and that deviation from this aim was prima facie evidence for corruption. It's just a hail of non sequiturs one after the next. This is of course when they're not claiming that we should return to the feudal age laws, apart from all the ones they don't like, which would be almost all of them. I fancy myself quite the neo-victorian and enjoy steampunk fashion but even I wouldn't go back that far. Not sure what would happen to Gawker Media's Jezebel under the auspices of the Witchfinder General but it would probably bear some similarity to descriptions of that namesake in the Bible. It is quite funny to watch all these journalists LARPing into the middle ages. Much like the judge of this court case, they hate not being taken seriously, but how can you take them seriously when they're quoting non-existent laws from countries that don't exist anymore. It's like the title of a book found in a library from a Harry Potter novel. There's a heap of principals I think are good ideas but I don't pretend they should exist as codified law just because it suits me at this time. That is delusional thinking. -10 points from Hufflepuff.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    I'm not objecting to them agreeing; Bollea and Thiel are adults who are welcome to sign contracts as they please. But we're discussing the theory that "Thiel should be left out of the story of Gawker" and its demise. Given that it appears that Thiel directly influenced the legal strategy in ways that increase the odds of Gawker's destruction, I think it's ridiculous to say that Thiel's involvement is irrelevant to the story of Gawker's destruction. Thiel threatened it, wanted it, paid for it, and got it. That seems pretty relevant to me.

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.
- internaut 10y ago
  > 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. I have spoken to a chap on here who apparently thought it was a legal obligation on the defendant to seek the highest financial settlement and that deviation from this aim was prima facie evidence for corruption. It's just a hail of non sequiturs one after the next. This is of course when they're not claiming that we should return to the feudal age laws, apart from all the ones they don't like, which would be almost all of them. I fancy myself quite the neo-victorian and enjoy steampunk fashion but even I wouldn't go back that far. Not sure what would happen to Gawker Media's Jezebel under the auspices of the Witchfinder General but it would probably bear some similarity to descriptions of that namesake in the Bible. It is quite funny to watch all these journalists LARPing into the middle ages. Much like the judge of this court case, they hate not being taken seriously, but how can you take them seriously when they're quoting non-existent laws from countries that don't exist anymore. It's like the title of a book found in a library from a Harry Potter novel. There's a heap of principals I think are good ideas but I don't pretend they should exist as codified law just because it suits me at this time. That is delusional thinking. -10 points from Hufflepuff.
- wpietri 10y ago
  I'm not objecting to them agreeing; Bollea and Thiel are adults who are welcome to sign contracts as they please. But we're discussing the theory that "Thiel should be left out of the story of Gawker" and its demise. Given that it appears that Thiel directly influenced the legal strategy in ways that increase the odds of Gawker's destruction, I think it's ridiculous to say that Thiel's involvement is irrelevant to the story of Gawker's destruction. Thiel threatened it, wanted it, paid for it, and got it. That seems pretty relevant to me.