5 ms·

It would be a powerful argument, except that Thiel's money wasn't as instrumental in killing Gawker as Gawker's own behavior. The same attacks levied against, s

It would be a powerful argument, except that Thiel's money wasn't as instrumental in killing Gawker as Gawker's own behavior. The same attacks levied against, say, the NYT wouldn't have accomplished anything except losing Thiel money.

shard972 10y ago
I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech. I mean if Tiel was pouring millions after millions into failing lawsuits that just aim to drain whatever money he can sure but a single successful lawsuit?
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech. It's not spin if it is true: a suit does not need to be successful to ruin the targeted victim - simply defending yourself from a lawsuit costs a lot of money, good luck defending yourself from a well-resourced nemesis. Without commenting on Gawker's culpability, I will draw parallels to Mother Jones, which was also sued by a billionaire[1] (Vandersloot), but they managed to beat the suit. Incensed, VanderSloot set up a million dollar fund available to pay the legal expenses of people wanting to sue Mother Jones or other members of the "liberal press."[1] MoJo even weighed in on Thiel v Gawker, stating For the likes of VanderSloot, Adelson, Thiel, and Trump, the courts have become an avenue not so much for vindication, but for exacting a price[2]. They've been in the trenches, I'll take their word over people who assume only the guilty get punished by the justice system. 1. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander... 2.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/thiel-trump-vandersloot-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/thiel-trump-vand...
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > likes of VanderSloot, Adelson, Thiel, and Trump > They've been in the trenches Thiel isn't like the others in that list. And was Thiel and the others not "in the tranches" too?
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > Thiel isn't like the others in that list. If it wasn't clear - I was quoting a Mother Jones article (which I agree with). And if you don't mind my asking, how is Thiel different from the others, if the premise is that the others are weaponizing the courts to exact a price on their foes? > And was Thiel and the others not "in the tranches" too? "In the trenches" isn't a metaphor I would use for Thiel and the other aggressors; I would say he was more than 200 miles behind the front in an air-conditioned tent with a fridge and a decanter of whisky in the corner.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > weaponizing the courts to exact a price on their foes Because his case had merit. The price exacted was just punishment for crime. > isn't a metaphor I would use for Thiel because he's wealth and well off? I don't think any of the publications employees had to skip a meal either. It wasn't Thiel that threw the first punch. Was was brought upon Gawker's head was brought on by themselves. Describing punishment for crime as "being in the trenches" divorces from the situation the most important thing - right and wrong. I don't know about the MJ cases, but Gawker was in the wrong.

shard972 10y ago

I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech. I mean if Tiel was pouring millions after millions into failing lawsuits that just aim to drain whatever money he can sure but a single successful lawsuit?

sangnoir 10y ago
> I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech. It's not spin if it is true: a suit does not need to be successful to ruin the targeted victim - simply defending yourself from a lawsuit costs a lot of money, good luck defending yourself from a well-resourced nemesis. Without commenting on Gawker's culpability, I will draw parallels to Mother Jones, which was also sued by a billionaire[1] (Vandersloot), but they managed to beat the suit. Incensed, VanderSloot set up a million dollar fund available to pay the legal expenses of people wanting to sue Mother Jones or other members of the "liberal press."[1] MoJo even weighed in on Thiel v Gawker, stating For the likes of VanderSloot, Adelson, Thiel, and Trump, the courts have become an avenue not so much for vindication, but for exacting a price[2]. They've been in the trenches, I'll take their word over people who assume only the guilty get punished by the justice system. 1. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander... 2.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/thiel-trump-vandersloot-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/thiel-trump-vand...
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > likes of VanderSloot, Adelson, Thiel, and Trump > They've been in the trenches Thiel isn't like the others in that list. And was Thiel and the others not "in the tranches" too?
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > Thiel isn't like the others in that list. If it wasn't clear - I was quoting a Mother Jones article (which I agree with). And if you don't mind my asking, how is Thiel different from the others, if the premise is that the others are weaponizing the courts to exact a price on their foes? > And was Thiel and the others not "in the tranches" too? "In the trenches" isn't a metaphor I would use for Thiel and the other aggressors; I would say he was more than 200 miles behind the front in an air-conditioned tent with a fridge and a decanter of whisky in the corner.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > weaponizing the courts to exact a price on their foes Because his case had merit. The price exacted was just punishment for crime. > isn't a metaphor I would use for Thiel because he's wealth and well off? I don't think any of the publications employees had to skip a meal either. It wasn't Thiel that threw the first punch. Was was brought upon Gawker's head was brought on by themselves. Describing punishment for crime as "being in the trenches" divorces from the situation the most important thing - right and wrong. I don't know about the MJ cases, but Gawker was in the wrong.