4 ms·

Weird, because in Gawker's case, he didn't have a case for libel or slander. They outed him as gay. I considered their actions despicable, but they didn't lie a

Weird, because in Gawker's case, he didn't have a case for libel or slander. They outed him as gay. I considered their actions despicable, but they didn't lie and that's why he didn't have a case. And that's why he had to use Hulk Hogan to exact revenge, which goes to show that a single guy with too much money can essentially reign unchecked in today's America. That's not good, no matter if you happen to agree politically with said guy with too much money at this particular point in time.

jpttsn 9y ago
In your ideal society, you would rather see Hogan lose in court for lack of money?
- millstone 9y ago
  Ideally all cases would be decided on their merits irrespective of funding. But if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped? What is frightening about Thiel’s involvement case is the playbook: destroy media companies that have been critical or embarrassed you, by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous.
  - dkersten 9y ago
    > by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous. Did he actually do this? (all and any, even if frivolous)
  - lmm 9y ago
    > if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped? Maybe. Thiel funded the destruction of Gawker for their crime against Hogan. He probably wouldn't've funded it if he hadn't had a personal grudge against Gawker, sure, but Hogan's lawsuit was entirely legitimate. If there hadn't been a legitimate lawsuit against Gawker, only illegitimate ones, would Thiel have funded those? We really can't say.
  - boomlinde 9y ago
    If he extracts his revenge by helping people that legitimately believe that they had their rights trampled seek justice, is it not a net benefit to society regardless of his personal motives?
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  In my ideal society, lawyers wouldn't cost and arm and a leg or at least government would make sure individuals could sue corporations if there's a solid case. Essentially, the bigger issue here is that Gawker could hide behind a bunch of lawyers even when they knew they were doing something despicable. Take that away, and things get fairer pretty quickly.
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    Sounds shiny. How would government determine if there’s a solid case? Some kind of formal hearing?

jpttsn 9y ago

In your ideal society, you would rather see Hogan lose in court for lack of money?

millstone 9y ago
Ideally all cases would be decided on their merits irrespective of funding. But if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped? What is frightening about Thiel’s involvement case is the playbook: destroy media companies that have been critical or embarrassed you, by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous.
- dkersten 9y ago
  > by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous. Did he actually do this? (all and any, even if frivolous)
- lmm 9y ago
  > if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped? Maybe. Thiel funded the destruction of Gawker for their crime against Hogan. He probably wouldn't've funded it if he hadn't had a personal grudge against Gawker, sure, but Hogan's lawsuit was entirely legitimate. If there hadn't been a legitimate lawsuit against Gawker, only illegitimate ones, would Thiel have funded those? We really can't say.
- boomlinde 9y ago
  If he extracts his revenge by helping people that legitimately believe that they had their rights trampled seek justice, is it not a net benefit to society regardless of his personal motives?
dguaraglia 9y ago
In my ideal society, lawyers wouldn't cost and arm and a leg or at least government would make sure individuals could sue corporations if there's a solid case. Essentially, the bigger issue here is that Gawker could hide behind a bunch of lawyers even when they knew they were doing something despicable. Take that away, and things get fairer pretty quickly.
- jpttsn 9y ago
  Sounds shiny. How would government determine if there’s a solid case? Some kind of formal hearing?