5 ms·

Koch group, Craigslist founder come to Techdirt's aid

47 points by artsandsci 9y ago

wslh 9y ago
Kudos to Union Square Ventures too. Fred Wilson previously commented about this at http://avc.com/2017/01/protecting-the-right-to-speak-and-write-and-blog/ http://avc.com/2017/01/protecting-the-right-to-speak-and-wri...
bpicolo 9y ago
It appears that yes, it's the exact same person who's been trying to take credit for inventing email for ages. https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/11/03/mit-grad-who-claims-he-invented-email-wins-piece.html https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/11/03/mit-grad-... http://fortune.com/2016/03/07/who-really-invented-email/ http://fortune.com/2016/03/07/who-really-invented-email/ > He has trademarked "The Inventor of Email"
FloayYerBoat 9y ago
It never ceases to amaze me how many "journalists" still deride the Gawker lawsuit. Are they offended that they cannot publish anyone's personal sex tape without permission? Keep in mind, a celebrity did not have enough money to take on a shittly little website in a lawsuit, so even he had to find another backer. Imagine if Gawker decided to publish your private info. Would you have enough money to defend your privacy?
- matt4077 9y ago
  It never ceases to amaze me how "reading comprehension" has declined. The article doesn't make a value judgement about the Gawker lawsuit, and nobody is "offended". It only contains a statement of fact: "some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit". Now I don't know if that statement is accurate, but I see no reason to doubt it. It's also noteworthy that (as far as I remember) nobody came to Gawker's defence, precisely because it was generally accepted that publishing the tape was wrong. However, the chilling effect isn't necessarily about journalists' fear of no longer being able to publish sex tapes. They are concerned because Gawker ultimately went down not for the indefensible sex tape, but for its treatment of Peter Thiel. This case, if lost, would open pandora's box: You can write an article that is completely accurate, relevant, legal, and important to publish. But if it crosses the wrong billionaire, they can go through all of your archive, pick whatever I-invented-email-nutjob they believe has the best chances with a jury (or ten of them), and bankrupt you.
  - FloayYerBoat 9y ago
    I think my reading comprehension is fine. "...writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit — which some have called the Gawker Effect." "This sends a message that there are wealthy Americans or their proxies willing to push back on a trend toward litigation over negative news stories driven by some of their peers. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, for example, funded the lawsuit against Gawker;" This article is clearly hinting that the Gawker lawsuit had a poor outcome, and fails to mention Gawker's actual liability in the case and why they lost a trial. They also mention that Gawker was just writing "news stories" twice and that is why they were sued. I stand by my original comment.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    >It only contains a statement of fact: "some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit". Is that really a statement of fact, or is what they're shying away from is repeating rumors about and/or invading the privacy of powerful and well-resourced people? I know journalists love to trot out the "chilling effect" canard, but I don't see it much in action for legitimate stories.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      They link this article, which says that it almost happened to the R. Kelly "cult" story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-r-kelly-cult-story-almost-never-ran-thank-hulk-hogan-for-that/2017/07/30/19e1f8ea-72c5-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-r-kelly-...
- chipotle_coyote 9y ago
  Keep in mind, a celebrity did not have enough money to take on a shittly little website in a lawsuit, so even he had to find another backer. That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the backer in question didn't give a shit about Hulk Hogan and his sex tape, beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that he already wanted to take out. (If this was just up to Hogan, he'd likely have taken one of the settlements offered, and almost certainly wouldn't have dropped the claim of "negligent infliction of emotional distress," a move whose only point was to prevent Gawker's insurance company from being able to cover any part of the damages.) In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that Thiel backed several lawsuits against Gawker, including one from the same yoyo who claims to have invented email that's suing Techdirt now. And Thiel won't say if he's bankrolling Ayyuadurai's lawsuit against Techdirt, which is being brought by the same attorney Thiel hired for Hogan. What a strange coincidence! Celebrity rags being sued isn't a precedent; having a billionaire fund other people's lawsuits until he finds one that sticks is. And there's a small but non-zero chance that the lawsuit we're talking about right now is one of those lawsuits, and unlike the Hogan case, the plaintiff is clearly in the wrong. Journalists, and I won't put the snide air quotes around the word, aren't that worried about the "if you publish somebody's leaked sex tape you can get sued for it" part of this matter. They're worried about the other part.
  - msla 9y ago
    > beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that he already wanted to take out. OK, so why did he have it in for Gawker? They outed him as gay against his will while he was in Saudi Arabia. (Edited To Add: I can't find any good cites saying he was in Saudi Arabia at the time, so I don't know one way or the other right now. Regardless, the outing itself was morally wrong, so my argument doesn't change.) That's behavior which should be punished, morally, even if it isn't illegal. It's certainly behavior which anyone with a brain can realize would lead to making the person you outed an enemy. It seems Gawker's main sin was making an enemy of someone who could hurt them, and the injustice here is that most assholes don't have such enemies.
    - aetherson 9y ago
guelo 9y ago
American democracy is over, it is impossible to make governmental change in a way that benefits the public. We are left with different billionaires battling each other and the rest of us hoping that some benevolent billionaire will take up our cause.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
"some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit — which some have called the Gawker Effect." That's not correct and misses the point of the Gawker lawsuits. The Gawker Effect is that journalists are now, for perhaps the first time in modern history, contemplating if a story going to print is actually news, or merely gossip.
basseq 9y ago
I'm glad that these donors are funding Techdirt's defense... in the same way that I'm glad Peter Thiel backed Hogan against Gawker. If two parties go to court over a dispute, there should be equal "firepower" on both sides so justice can be served. Gawker lost the Hogan suit because Thiel's funding allowed that suit to be brought in the first place. Thus, arguments that Thiel's funding was "unfair" equates to logic that Hogan shouldn't have won because he shouldn't have been "allowed" to seek justice in the first place. The same argument follows here. Threatening a suit that the defendant is not "allowed" to defend (because they can't afford it) is the real injustice. This is still a band-aid on the real problem: that economic inequality can buy justice.
- aetherson 9y ago
  It sure was nice of Thiel to help poor down-and-out Terry Bollea, who hardly has two dimes to rub together. Unless you count his $25 million or so.
  - basseq 9y ago
    It's relative. Thiel contributed a reported $10M. As an individual, it’s difficult to be able/willing to spend a third of your net worth to pursue a lawsuit. I didn’t see any accusation that the Gawker lawsuit was won because Hogan spent more money. Thus: “fair justice” was served and the amount of money doesn’t matter. Thiel’s contribution enabled Hogan (necessary or not) to seek “fair justice”—which I have a hard time finding fault with. Likewise in this case. Donors are enabling TechDirt to seek “fair justice” in court. Good on them. Bottom line: money should not be the deciding factor in a court case, either in your ability to win it or bring one in the first place.
- danso 9y ago
  Coincidentally, the lawyer who represented Hogan, Charles HArder, is the lawyer who is representing Ayyadurai, this alleged "Inventor of EMAIL", in his lawsuit against TechDirt: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/man-who-says-he-invented-e-mail-sues-techdirt-for-disputing-claim/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/man-who-says-he-... http://gizmodo.com/peter-thiel-wont-say-if-hes-bankrolling-lawsuit-against-1791652277 http://gizmodo.com/peter-thiel-wont-say-if-hes-bankrolling-l... http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2017/07/09/shiva-ayyadurai/ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2017/07/09/shiva-... Ayyadurai and Thiel deny having any connection or knowledge of each other, even though Ayyadurai and Harder successfully won a lawsuit against Gawker shortly after Hogan's and Harder's victory against Gawker: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/shivas-war-one-mans-quest-to-convince-the-world-that-he-invented-e-mail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/shivas-war-one-m... I guess it would be embarrassing for Thiel to be associated with the guy who is shitting on the graves of such tech pioneers as Ray Tomlinson: https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/706670699713335297 https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/706670699713335297 > "I'm the low-caste, dark-skinned, Indian, who DID invent #email. Not Raytheon, who profits for war & death.Their mascot Tomlinson dies a liar"
zebraflask 9y ago
Good. The guy obviously didn't invent email, and the claim, on its face, doesn't need much comment to highlight how bizarre it is. Regardless of anyone's opinions about Gawker, Peter Thiel, the Koch group, etc., he shouldn't be allowed to abuse the legal system like this.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
I am disappointed that a lawfirm didn't take this as pro-bono. Also where's ACLU with their fundraising network ready? The suing party might be in for a surprise...while the initial commitment might be for $250K, I doubt the backers like to lose in this case, so money is not an object. What's a few million for them? Nothing!

47 points by artsandsci 9y ago

wslh 9y ago

Kudos to Union Square Ventures too. Fred Wilson previously commented about this at http://avc.com/2017/01/protecting-the-right-to-speak-and-write-and-blog/ http://avc.com/2017/01/protecting-the-right-to-speak-and-wri...

bpicolo 9y ago

It appears that yes, it's the exact same person who's been trying to take credit for inventing email for ages. https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/11/03/mit-grad-who-claims-he-invented-email-wins-piece.html https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/11/03/mit-grad-... http://fortune.com/2016/03/07/who-really-invented-email/ http://fortune.com/2016/03/07/who-really-invented-email/ > He has trademarked "The Inventor of Email"

FloayYerBoat 9y ago

It never ceases to amaze me how many "journalists" still deride the Gawker lawsuit. Are they offended that they cannot publish anyone's personal sex tape without permission? Keep in mind, a celebrity did not have enough money to take on a shittly little website in a lawsuit, so even he had to find another backer. Imagine if Gawker decided to publish your private info. Would you have enough money to defend your privacy?

matt4077 9y ago
It never ceases to amaze me how "reading comprehension" has declined. The article doesn't make a value judgement about the Gawker lawsuit, and nobody is "offended". It only contains a statement of fact: "some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit". Now I don't know if that statement is accurate, but I see no reason to doubt it. It's also noteworthy that (as far as I remember) nobody came to Gawker's defence, precisely because it was generally accepted that publishing the tape was wrong. However, the chilling effect isn't necessarily about journalists' fear of no longer being able to publish sex tapes. They are concerned because Gawker ultimately went down not for the indefensible sex tape, but for its treatment of Peter Thiel. This case, if lost, would open pandora's box: You can write an article that is completely accurate, relevant, legal, and important to publish. But if it crosses the wrong billionaire, they can go through all of your archive, pick whatever I-invented-email-nutjob they believe has the best chances with a jury (or ten of them), and bankrupt you.
- FloayYerBoat 9y ago
  I think my reading comprehension is fine. "...writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit — which some have called the Gawker Effect." "This sends a message that there are wealthy Americans or their proxies willing to push back on a trend toward litigation over negative news stories driven by some of their peers. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, for example, funded the lawsuit against Gawker;" This article is clearly hinting that the Gawker lawsuit had a poor outcome, and fails to mention Gawker's actual liability in the case and why they lost a trial. They also mention that Gawker was just writing "news stories" twice and that is why they were sued. I stand by my original comment.
- gozur88 9y ago
  >It only contains a statement of fact: "some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit". Is that really a statement of fact, or is what they're shying away from is repeating rumors about and/or invading the privacy of powerful and well-resourced people? I know journalists love to trot out the "chilling effect" canard, but I don't see it much in action for legitimate stories.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    They link this article, which says that it almost happened to the R. Kelly "cult" story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-r-kelly-cult-story-almost-never-ran-thank-hulk-hogan-for-that/2017/07/30/19e1f8ea-72c5-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-r-kelly-...
chipotle_coyote 9y ago
Keep in mind, a celebrity did not have enough money to take on a shittly little website in a lawsuit, so even he had to find another backer. That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the backer in question didn't give a shit about Hulk Hogan and his sex tape, beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that he already wanted to take out. (If this was just up to Hogan, he'd likely have taken one of the settlements offered, and almost certainly wouldn't have dropped the claim of "negligent infliction of emotional distress," a move whose only point was to prevent Gawker's insurance company from being able to cover any part of the damages.) In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that Thiel backed several lawsuits against Gawker, including one from the same yoyo who claims to have invented email that's suing Techdirt now. And Thiel won't say if he's bankrolling Ayyuadurai's lawsuit against Techdirt, which is being brought by the same attorney Thiel hired for Hogan. What a strange coincidence! Celebrity rags being sued isn't a precedent; having a billionaire fund other people's lawsuits until he finds one that sticks is. And there's a small but non-zero chance that the lawsuit we're talking about right now is one of those lawsuits, and unlike the Hogan case, the plaintiff is clearly in the wrong. Journalists, and I won't put the snide air quotes around the word, aren't that worried about the "if you publish somebody's leaked sex tape you can get sued for it" part of this matter. They're worried about the other part.
- msla 9y ago
  > beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that he already wanted to take out. OK, so why did he have it in for Gawker? They outed him as gay against his will while he was in Saudi Arabia. (Edited To Add: I can't find any good cites saying he was in Saudi Arabia at the time, so I don't know one way or the other right now. Regardless, the outing itself was morally wrong, so my argument doesn't change.) That's behavior which should be punished, morally, even if it isn't illegal. It's certainly behavior which anyone with a brain can realize would lead to making the person you outed an enemy. It seems Gawker's main sin was making an enemy of someone who could hurt them, and the injustice here is that most assholes don't have such enemies.
  - aetherson 9y ago

guelo 9y ago

American democracy is over, it is impossible to make governmental change in a way that benefits the public. We are left with different billionaires battling each other and the rest of us hoping that some benevolent billionaire will take up our cause.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

"some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit — which some have called the Gawker Effect." That's not correct and misses the point of the Gawker lawsuits. The Gawker Effect is that journalists are now, for perhaps the first time in modern history, contemplating if a story going to print is actually news, or merely gossip.

basseq 9y ago

I'm glad that these donors are funding Techdirt's defense... in the same way that I'm glad Peter Thiel backed Hogan against Gawker. If two parties go to court over a dispute, there should be equal "firepower" on both sides so justice can be served. Gawker lost the Hogan suit because Thiel's funding allowed that suit to be brought in the first place. Thus, arguments that Thiel's funding was "unfair" equates to logic that Hogan shouldn't have won because he shouldn't have been "allowed" to seek justice in the first place. The same argument follows here. Threatening a suit that the defendant is not "allowed" to defend (because they can't afford it) is the real injustice. This is still a band-aid on the real problem: that economic inequality can buy justice.

aetherson 9y ago
It sure was nice of Thiel to help poor down-and-out Terry Bollea, who hardly has two dimes to rub together. Unless you count his $25 million or so.
- basseq 9y ago
  It's relative. Thiel contributed a reported $10M. As an individual, it’s difficult to be able/willing to spend a third of your net worth to pursue a lawsuit. I didn’t see any accusation that the Gawker lawsuit was won because Hogan spent more money. Thus: “fair justice” was served and the amount of money doesn’t matter. Thiel’s contribution enabled Hogan (necessary or not) to seek “fair justice”—which I have a hard time finding fault with. Likewise in this case. Donors are enabling TechDirt to seek “fair justice” in court. Good on them. Bottom line: money should not be the deciding factor in a court case, either in your ability to win it or bring one in the first place.
danso 9y ago
Coincidentally, the lawyer who represented Hogan, Charles HArder, is the lawyer who is representing Ayyadurai, this alleged "Inventor of EMAIL", in his lawsuit against TechDirt: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/man-who-says-he-invented-e-mail-sues-techdirt-for-disputing-claim/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/man-who-says-he-... http://gizmodo.com/peter-thiel-wont-say-if-hes-bankrolling-lawsuit-against-1791652277 http://gizmodo.com/peter-thiel-wont-say-if-hes-bankrolling-l... http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2017/07/09/shiva-ayyadurai/ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2017/07/09/shiva-... Ayyadurai and Thiel deny having any connection or knowledge of each other, even though Ayyadurai and Harder successfully won a lawsuit against Gawker shortly after Hogan's and Harder's victory against Gawker: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/shivas-war-one-mans-quest-to-convince-the-world-that-he-invented-e-mail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/shivas-war-one-m... I guess it would be embarrassing for Thiel to be associated with the guy who is shitting on the graves of such tech pioneers as Ray Tomlinson: https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/706670699713335297 https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/706670699713335297 > "I'm the low-caste, dark-skinned, Indian, who DID invent #email. Not Raytheon, who profits for war & death.Their mascot Tomlinson dies a liar"

zebraflask 9y ago

Good. The guy obviously didn't invent email, and the claim, on its face, doesn't need much comment to highlight how bizarre it is. Regardless of anyone's opinions about Gawker, Peter Thiel, the Koch group, etc., he shouldn't be allowed to abuse the legal system like this.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

I am disappointed that a lawfirm didn't take this as pro-bono. Also where's ACLU with their fundraising network ready? The suing party might be in for a surprise...while the initial commitment might be for $250K, I doubt the backers like to lose in this case, so money is not an object. What's a few million for them? Nothing!