4 ms·

I feel like virtually all of the comments here are focusing on the fact that Gawker, as a company, was generally unethical and harmed a lot of people for no goo

by Zafira 9y ago

I feel like virtually all of the comments here are focusing on the fact that Gawker, as a company, was generally unethical and harmed a lot of people for no good reason. This is not the point. Hulk Hogan is entirely moot to the issue at hand. Hogan's case was just a vehicle for Thiel's goal of getting back at a company who had written articles that he disliked. What Thiel did was to tell people with deep enough pockets to see that it's possible to destroy someone for writing articles that they disagree with. The case was structured to ensure that Gawker could not rely on insurance for paying certain damages and that people became personally liable for the damages arising from the case[1]. So, imagine that Warren Buffet dislikes an expose in the Chicago Tribune about him. He then waits for someone to have a grievance against them and then tells that person that he'll provide all the financial resources to drag this case on for years and refuse to settle or repeatedly finds various proxy parties and repeats this behavior. Tronc is then forced to sell assets to keep afloat while dealing with this litigation. Thiel's behavior shows this works and that most people seem okay with it. That's the problem. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/media/nick-denton-gawker-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/media/nick-dento...

nailer 9y ago
Gawker wasn't sued for writing articles people disagree with. They were sued for publishing someone else's sex tape without their permission. Most people (journalists excepted) are OK with taking down a company for publishing someone else's sex tape without their permission. Aren't you?
- michaelt 9y ago
  Sure, they were sued for publishing someone else's sex tape. But the reason they were put out of business - rather than reaching a settlement or paying out from insurance - is because Peter Thiel had a (arguably justifiable) grudge against them.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    But that's not a lesson that's very valuable. What is valuable though is to learn that it requires money to win over media. Who knows how many other peoples lives have been destroyed by not being able to afford taking media to court. Thats relevant, whether Thiel had a grudge is not important many people have grudges and take other people to court over it.
  - detaro 9y ago
    In an alternative perspective, for once the big company couldn't force the victim into a limited settlement through the threat of exhausting their finances in a legal battle. The fact that judgments of such high amounts can happen is a general issue though, and they seem to serve as a questionable replacement for punishment that maybe should be the domain of criminal cases.
Chris2048 9y ago
> he'll provide all the financial resources to drag this case on for years and refuse to settle or repeatedly finds various proxy parties and repeats this behavior This didn't happen in Gawker's case though
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> Thiel's behavior shows this works and that most people seem okay with it. That's the problem. Not only that, it is "celebrated". Call me a cynic but I'm sure it's also because Thiel hired a large PR firm to "massage social media" and frame the debate. It was shocking to see how so much of social media "fell in love" with thiel overnight. You would see threads about patent trolls suing small companies or large corporations using patents to destroy small companies and much of social media would be against it. But then celebrate Thiel as if he was some hero. Even here, you see the same theme. The top comments are praising or defending thiel.
- ElEmEnOhP 9y ago
  Probably because Gawker lost in the court of law for the horrible things they did. It also didn't help that Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio made that horrible quip as well. I doubt there was much need for "social media massaging" when you are dealing with Gawker.
AlexB138 9y ago
I don't follow the logic here. Gawker was brought down via the Hogan case, which was financed by Thiel. Do you believe the Hogan case was an illegitimate suit? If not, why does it matter who financed it? I find the fact that it requires huge funds to win a case much more troubling, personally. If the suit itself is legitimate, then him winning is a good thing. If you take exception to Thiel financing Hogan's case, why? Hogan very likely would not have been able to afford the case without the financing, meaning justice wouldn't have been served because he was not rich enough.
- aphexbr 9y ago
  It goes both ways. If Thiel's money was necessary for Hogan to get justice, that is indeed a problem with the US legal system. But, on the flipside, Thiel was financing numerous lawsuits against Gawker due to a personal vendetta, many of them much more frivolous and defensible than the Hogan case. He clearly intended to bury Gawker, the Hogan thing was just a way he found to do it quickly rather than waiting for their legal defense funds to run out. Both of these are problems. What's troubling/chilling is that Thiel hasn't stopped, he's just agreed to finance other peoples' vendettas (in the first case, Shiva Ayyadurai, about whom Techdirt are telling the absolute verifiable truth when they say he's lying about inventing email). That's where it crossed the line, and created a dangerous precedent that has a real chilling effect.
wmil 9y ago
What you're missing is that your rage is very selective. Michael Mann has used unknown backers to sue National Review and Mark Steyn, and has managed to draw the lawsuit out for over 6 years with no end in sight. He gets almost no bad press over this fact. There was nothing unprecedented about Thiel's behaviour. It's quite common. Gawker just had particularly bad behaviour, yet for some reason it felt invincible.
anotherbrownguy 9y ago
>What Thiel did was to tell people with deep enough pockets to see that it's possible to destroy someone for writing articles that they disagree with What Theil did was to show that to make sure justice is served when a rich entity is involved, at least an equally rich entity should be involved to make them pay for it. You make it sound like Theil bribed someone or did something unethical. What he merely did was that he kept paying lawyers so that the lawyers being paid by Gawker could not get away digging for excuses and lengthening the case (usually, lengthening the case is way to make the opposition go bankrupt).

by Zafira 9y ago

nailer 9y ago

Gawker wasn't sued for writing articles people disagree with. They were sued for publishing someone else's sex tape without their permission. Most people (journalists excepted) are OK with taking down a company for publishing someone else's sex tape without their permission. Aren't you?

michaelt 9y ago
Sure, they were sued for publishing someone else's sex tape. But the reason they were put out of business - rather than reaching a settlement or paying out from insurance - is because Peter Thiel had a (arguably justifiable) grudge against them.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  But that's not a lesson that's very valuable. What is valuable though is to learn that it requires money to win over media. Who knows how many other peoples lives have been destroyed by not being able to afford taking media to court. Thats relevant, whether Thiel had a grudge is not important many people have grudges and take other people to court over it.
- detaro 9y ago
  In an alternative perspective, for once the big company couldn't force the victim into a limited settlement through the threat of exhausting their finances in a legal battle. The fact that judgments of such high amounts can happen is a general issue though, and they seem to serve as a questionable replacement for punishment that maybe should be the domain of criminal cases.

Chris2048 9y ago

> he'll provide all the financial resources to drag this case on for years and refuse to settle or repeatedly finds various proxy parties and repeats this behavior This didn't happen in Gawker's case though

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago

> Thiel's behavior shows this works and that most people seem okay with it. That's the problem. Not only that, it is "celebrated". Call me a cynic but I'm sure it's also because Thiel hired a large PR firm to "massage social media" and frame the debate. It was shocking to see how so much of social media "fell in love" with thiel overnight. You would see threads about patent trolls suing small companies or large corporations using patents to destroy small companies and much of social media would be against it. But then celebrate Thiel as if he was some hero. Even here, you see the same theme. The top comments are praising or defending thiel.

ElEmEnOhP 9y ago
Probably because Gawker lost in the court of law for the horrible things they did. It also didn't help that Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio made that horrible quip as well. I doubt there was much need for "social media massaging" when you are dealing with Gawker.

AlexB138 9y ago

I don't follow the logic here. Gawker was brought down via the Hogan case, which was financed by Thiel. Do you believe the Hogan case was an illegitimate suit? If not, why does it matter who financed it? I find the fact that it requires huge funds to win a case much more troubling, personally. If the suit itself is legitimate, then him winning is a good thing. If you take exception to Thiel financing Hogan's case, why? Hogan very likely would not have been able to afford the case without the financing, meaning justice wouldn't have been served because he was not rich enough.

aphexbr 9y ago
It goes both ways. If Thiel's money was necessary for Hogan to get justice, that is indeed a problem with the US legal system. But, on the flipside, Thiel was financing numerous lawsuits against Gawker due to a personal vendetta, many of them much more frivolous and defensible than the Hogan case. He clearly intended to bury Gawker, the Hogan thing was just a way he found to do it quickly rather than waiting for their legal defense funds to run out. Both of these are problems. What's troubling/chilling is that Thiel hasn't stopped, he's just agreed to finance other peoples' vendettas (in the first case, Shiva Ayyadurai, about whom Techdirt are telling the absolute verifiable truth when they say he's lying about inventing email). That's where it crossed the line, and created a dangerous precedent that has a real chilling effect.

wmil 9y ago

What you're missing is that your rage is very selective. Michael Mann has used unknown backers to sue National Review and Mark Steyn, and has managed to draw the lawsuit out for over 6 years with no end in sight. He gets almost no bad press over this fact. There was nothing unprecedented about Thiel's behaviour. It's quite common. Gawker just had particularly bad behaviour, yet for some reason it felt invincible.

anotherbrownguy 9y ago

>What Thiel did was to tell people with deep enough pockets to see that it's possible to destroy someone for writing articles that they disagree with What Theil did was to show that to make sure justice is served when a rich entity is involved, at least an equally rich entity should be involved to make them pay for it. You make it sound like Theil bribed someone or did something unethical. What he merely did was that he kept paying lawyers so that the lawyers being paid by Gawker could not get away digging for excuses and lengthening the case (usually, lengthening the case is way to make the opposition go bankrupt).