3 ms·

okay thats just kinda semantics then. he didn't get revenge because he did something wrong. he got revenge because he felt someone else did something wrong. so

by swang 10y ago

okay thats just kinda semantics then. he didn't get revenge because he did something wrong. he got revenge because he felt someone else did something wrong. so this is still all about revenge for thiel at the cost of chilling free speech. thiel saying he is defending free speech is disingenuous when the supreme court has given the press considerable latitude to write about someone's sexual orientation. he is mad about something that was completely legal for gawker to do. now it is a really shitty thing to do to out someone as gay. but let's not pretend this wasn't thiel's payback. > He was so paranoid that, when I was looking into the story, a year ago, I got a series of messages relaying the destruction that would rain down on me, and various innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, if a story ever ran. - Nick Denton's comment in original Thiel is gay article on Gawker [0] http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people?comment=3414140#comments http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people?c...

serge2k 10y ago
> now it is a really shitty thing to do to out someone as gay. but let's not pretend this wasn't thiel's payback. It's absolutely payback, I'm saying I don't have a problem wiht it. I think gawker is getting exactly what they deserve. Thiel/Hogan had to go and prove their argument in court. Do you not trust the court system to preserve free speech? Does this argument apply to everyone, or just billionaires who actually have the resources to fight against trash like Gawker?
- spdustin 10y ago
  > Do you not trust the court system to preserve free speech? Bankrolling a plaintiff going up against a financially inferior defendant means that the plaintiff's argument may be framed more convincingly than the defendant's. And, not to put too fine a point on it, the jury opted to imperil Gawker's free speech; juries are even more susceptible to impassioned pleas to "think about the real victim" than a judge. The main issue for me is that Thiel opted to use another case to exact his revenge against a media company, rather than his own. He made Hogan the instrument for his revenge. Sure, Gawker is a pox, but its right to be a pox should be defended with the same fervor with which Thiel's vengeance was exacted. It wasn't. It couldn't have been. That's why it's generally seen as a bad thing when someone an order of magnitude (or more) more wealthy than a defendant puts their money behind a plaintiff when the case isn't about the financier to begin with. I see why Thiel is a self-styled privacy champion - the crux of his revenge scheme, after all, is that his privacy was violated. But, to me, it seems like a hypocritical assertion; why didn't he take Gawker down for violating his privacy? Did he not think a jury would be enamored enough with him? The case stinks all over. It's bad for everyone involved. Thiel loses credibility as a champion of privacy, Gawker is on its way out, and Hulk Hogan's own private escapades were paraded out to the public. The whole mess is toxic.
  - maverick_iceman 10y ago
    If Gawker's free speech rights were harmed then surely the ruling would be turned down on a first amendment ground. What are you so worried about then?
- swang 10y ago
  > It's absolutely payback, I'm saying I don't have a problem wiht it. I think gawker is getting exactly what they deserve. cool. just don't say you (thiel) advocate for free speech when you do that.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    I don't.

by swang 10y ago

serge2k 10y ago

> now it is a really shitty thing to do to out someone as gay. but let's not pretend this wasn't thiel's payback. It's absolutely payback, I'm saying I don't have a problem wiht it. I think gawker is getting exactly what they deserve. Thiel/Hogan had to go and prove their argument in court. Do you not trust the court system to preserve free speech? Does this argument apply to everyone, or just billionaires who actually have the resources to fight against trash like Gawker?

spdustin 10y ago
> Do you not trust the court system to preserve free speech? Bankrolling a plaintiff going up against a financially inferior defendant means that the plaintiff's argument may be framed more convincingly than the defendant's. And, not to put too fine a point on it, the jury opted to imperil Gawker's free speech; juries are even more susceptible to impassioned pleas to "think about the real victim" than a judge. The main issue for me is that Thiel opted to use another case to exact his revenge against a media company, rather than his own. He made Hogan the instrument for his revenge. Sure, Gawker is a pox, but its right to be a pox should be defended with the same fervor with which Thiel's vengeance was exacted. It wasn't. It couldn't have been. That's why it's generally seen as a bad thing when someone an order of magnitude (or more) more wealthy than a defendant puts their money behind a plaintiff when the case isn't about the financier to begin with. I see why Thiel is a self-styled privacy champion - the crux of his revenge scheme, after all, is that his privacy was violated. But, to me, it seems like a hypocritical assertion; why didn't he take Gawker down for violating his privacy? Did he not think a jury would be enamored enough with him? The case stinks all over. It's bad for everyone involved. Thiel loses credibility as a champion of privacy, Gawker is on its way out, and Hulk Hogan's own private escapades were paraded out to the public. The whole mess is toxic.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  If Gawker's free speech rights were harmed then surely the ruling would be turned down on a first amendment ground. What are you so worried about then?
swang 10y ago
> It's absolutely payback, I'm saying I don't have a problem wiht it. I think gawker is getting exactly what they deserve. cool. just don't say you (thiel) advocate for free speech when you do that.
- serge2k 10y ago
  I don't.