5 ms·

How much damage has Peter Thiel done to free speech? This is what Peter Thiel will be remembered for.

by nsnick 9y ago

notyourday 9y ago
s/Peter Thiel/Gawker/g; there, fixed it for you.
civilian 9y ago
I think you're asking a rhetorical question where the answer is in the affirmative. But I would actually like to know how much damage Peter Thiel has done to free speech. Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.
- slg 9y ago
  >Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended. Why do so many people ignore this fact? Yes, Thiel funded a lawsuit that bankrupted them. But he won that lawsuit because Gawker committed a crime. I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political causes. Either we agree that a third party is allowed to fund a legal case for political reasons or not. Isn't that in and of itself an issue of free speech?
  - jhayward 9y ago
    > because Gawker committed a crime What criminal statute was Gawker convicted of breaking? It would behoove everyone to understand the difference between civil and criminal law. A tort is not a crime. They were found to have caused injury to the reputation of a person. That is not a crime.
    - mgiannopoulos 9y ago
      > That is not a crime. Are you saying that this is why no one went to jail over this?? :) :)
    - slg 9y ago
      I am not a lawyer. I was not using a specific legal definition of "crime". I was using the word colloquially and my usage is perfectly fine according the generally accepted definition of the word. [1] [1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime
  - davesque 9y ago
    Well, not exactly. The law is not perfect. It's enforced and deliberated by humans. If someone is guilty, it doesn't mean they're objectively guilty, as though such a thing even really exists. It means someone brought and argued a case against them and a judge or jury (one person or a small handful of people) agreed with the argument. We may like to think that the set of rules which leads to a judge or jury's decision is logical but it's far from it. So I don't buy into the notion that, simply because Gawker was found guilty by a court of law, we should not consider their side of things.
    - ng12 9y ago
      Did you actually read about the case or do you just follow the "Peter Thiel is bad" doctrine? I feel like when you're defending revenge porn you've lost touch a bit. They literally published an article about how they're ignoring a court order over the matter: http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
      - davesque 9y ago
        You're right. In principle, my comment has nothing to do with the case. I was responding to the parent posters' suggestions that, simply because Gawker broke the law, no one should come to their defense, which I was saying are short-sighted because they suppose that the law is somehow beyond reproach, which it isn't.
  - danso 9y ago
    > I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political cause What lawsuit are you thinking of in which the ACLU/NAACP/EFF/etc privately backed a litigant?
    - ng12 9y ago
      Is the fact that he did it privately the issue? I don't see why it should be: why would you have to identify where your lawyer's retainer comes from?
      - danso 9y ago
        The main issue of concern seemed to be about powerful individuals -- with individual agendas -- being able to wield heavy influence in other parties' legal processes. Being secret about it is not illegal, just made the issue more uncomfortable: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-t... > Roy D. Simon, a professor emeritus of legal ethics at Hofstra University School of Law, suggested that the practice has helped “level the playing field” by providing resources for people to mount cases against big institutions that would be impossible otherwise. http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/thiel-gawker/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/thiel-gawker/ > Perhaps, this could be solved by disclosure: Isn’t it in everyone’s interest to know when people like Thiel are behind a lawsuit? As it turns out, no one has to say a thing. According to Burford Capital, a litigation company whose clients include banks and hedge funds, the law is “perfectly clear … there is no obligation to disclose litigation financing arrangements.” FWIW, I checked up on the latest news regarding Thiel vs. Gawker. They are currently in bankruptcy proceedings. In June, the court agreed to let Gawker subpoena Thiel and do discovery on Thiel's relationship with Hogan's lawyer: http://archive.is/HXvDm http://archive.is/HXvDm > Judge Stuart Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan ruled Tuesday that Gawker has established cause for examining Mr. Thiel’s relationship with the lawyer, Charles Harder. Gawker seeks evidence, if any exists, that Mr. Thiel conspired with Mr. Harder to destroy the media company, which could be used to build a lawsuit against the billionaire venture capitalist. IANAL, and I haven't read anything that has explained the best-case scenario for Gawker, in terms of what evidence it would have to find, and what actions it could take. But apparently there was some merit to Gawker's claim that Thiel's role was problematic. A Buzzfeed reporter who is covering the case tweeted that Thiel potentially could be damaged by this Stanford Politics story: https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/935214376155365378 https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/935214376155365378 One of the supposedly problematic passages from the Stanford Politics article: > On Oct. 28, 2015, several months before Thiel was revealed to be the funder of a lawsuit that bankrupted renegade media company Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007, the Stanford grad (BA ’89, JD ’92) giddily told several Stanford undergraduates in a private meeting at his San Francisco home about his imminent destruction of what he called a “universally reviled organization.” Four undergrads present at the meeting confirmed the story, a seemingly out-of-character — however vague — disclosure from the quite private Thiel. But why would he divulge such a thing to a small group of students? And why was he meeting with them in the first place? Assuming that the SP's reporting on this is accurate, Thiel seems to have been way too overconfident in his private meetups with Stanford students. Again, this may end up being nothing in terms of Gawker's last-ditch legal fight, but for Thiel to gloat to students about his secret legal actions seems really dumb and careless. Hopefully (for his sake), he didn't say much more than that to Stanford students about the Gawker case.
CalChris 9y ago
I think you meant damage to the free press rather than to free speech.
dtornabene 9y ago
sadly you're getting downvoted into gray, but I have a feeling you're wrong for a different reason, Thiel will be remembered for many deeply authoritarian things, one of which will be his assault on the journalism. Gawker was a flawed organization, but they were also doing a fair amount of journalism that no one else would, not the least of which was sexual harassment allegations against people like Louis C.K. that are only now seeing the light.
- phil21 9y ago
  And then proceeded to sexually harass others via their platform. They needed to go, and they were not a net positive to society. The best quote on the topic (pretty sure I saved it from a HN comment) I've seen is: > The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
  - dtornabene 9y ago
    Not even sure what I'm supposed to say to "we need millionaires to take out journalists, the only way, really". As for "sexually harass others via their platform" .... what does that even mean? Who? How, exactly? What a bizarre comment.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

How much damage has Peter Thiel done to free speech? This is what Peter Thiel will be remembered for.

by nsnick 9y ago

How much damage has Peter Thiel done to free speech? This is what Peter Thiel will be remembered for.

notyourday 9y ago

s/Peter Thiel/Gawker/g; there, fixed it for you.

civilian 9y ago

I think you're asking a rhetorical question where the answer is in the affirmative. But I would actually like to know how much damage Peter Thiel has done to free speech. Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.

slg 9y ago
>Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended. Why do so many people ignore this fact? Yes, Thiel funded a lawsuit that bankrupted them. But he won that lawsuit because Gawker committed a crime. I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political causes. Either we agree that a third party is allowed to fund a legal case for political reasons or not. Isn't that in and of itself an issue of free speech?
- jhayward 9y ago
  > because Gawker committed a crime What criminal statute was Gawker convicted of breaking? It would behoove everyone to understand the difference between civil and criminal law. A tort is not a crime. They were found to have caused injury to the reputation of a person. That is not a crime.
  - mgiannopoulos 9y ago
    > That is not a crime. Are you saying that this is why no one went to jail over this?? :) :)
  - slg 9y ago
    I am not a lawyer. I was not using a specific legal definition of "crime". I was using the word colloquially and my usage is perfectly fine according the generally accepted definition of the word. [1] [1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime
- davesque 9y ago
  Well, not exactly. The law is not perfect. It's enforced and deliberated by humans. If someone is guilty, it doesn't mean they're objectively guilty, as though such a thing even really exists. It means someone brought and argued a case against them and a judge or jury (one person or a small handful of people) agreed with the argument. We may like to think that the set of rules which leads to a judge or jury's decision is logical but it's far from it. So I don't buy into the notion that, simply because Gawker was found guilty by a court of law, we should not consider their side of things.
  - ng12 9y ago
    Did you actually read about the case or do you just follow the "Peter Thiel is bad" doctrine? I feel like when you're defending revenge porn you've lost touch a bit. They literally published an article about how they're ignoring a court order over the matter: http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
    - davesque 9y ago
      You're right. In principle, my comment has nothing to do with the case. I was responding to the parent posters' suggestions that, simply because Gawker broke the law, no one should come to their defense, which I was saying are short-sighted because they suppose that the law is somehow beyond reproach, which it isn't.
- danso 9y ago
  > I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political cause What lawsuit are you thinking of in which the ACLU/NAACP/EFF/etc privately backed a litigant?
  - ng12 9y ago
    Is the fact that he did it privately the issue? I don't see why it should be: why would you have to identify where your lawyer's retainer comes from?
    - danso 9y ago
      The main issue of concern seemed to be about powerful individuals -- with individual agendas -- being able to wield heavy influence in other parties' legal processes. Being secret about it is not illegal, just made the issue more uncomfortable: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-t... > Roy D. Simon, a professor emeritus of legal ethics at Hofstra University School of Law, suggested that the practice has helped “level the playing field” by providing resources for people to mount cases against big institutions that would be impossible otherwise. http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/thiel-gawker/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/thiel-gawker/ > Perhaps, this could be solved by disclosure: Isn’t it in everyone’s interest to know when people like Thiel are behind a lawsuit? As it turns out, no one has to say a thing. According to Burford Capital, a litigation company whose clients include banks and hedge funds, the law is “perfectly clear … there is no obligation to disclose litigation financing arrangements.” FWIW, I checked up on the latest news regarding Thiel vs. Gawker. They are currently in bankruptcy proceedings. In June, the court agreed to let Gawker subpoena Thiel and do discovery on Thiel's relationship with Hogan's lawyer: http://archive.is/HXvDm http://archive.is/HXvDm > Judge Stuart Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan ruled Tuesday that Gawker has established cause for examining Mr. Thiel’s relationship with the lawyer, Charles Harder. Gawker seeks evidence, if any exists, that Mr. Thiel conspired with Mr. Harder to destroy the media company, which could be used to build a lawsuit against the billionaire venture capitalist. IANAL, and I haven't read anything that has explained the best-case scenario for Gawker, in terms of what evidence it would have to find, and what actions it could take. But apparently there was some merit to Gawker's claim that Thiel's role was problematic. A Buzzfeed reporter who is covering the case tweeted that Thiel potentially could be damaged by this Stanford Politics story: https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/935214376155365378 https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/935214376155365378 One of the supposedly problematic passages from the Stanford Politics article: > On Oct. 28, 2015, several months before Thiel was revealed to be the funder of a lawsuit that bankrupted renegade media company Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007, the Stanford grad (BA ’89, JD ’92) giddily told several Stanford undergraduates in a private meeting at his San Francisco home about his imminent destruction of what he called a “universally reviled organization.” Four undergrads present at the meeting confirmed the story, a seemingly out-of-character — however vague — disclosure from the quite private Thiel. But why would he divulge such a thing to a small group of students? And why was he meeting with them in the first place? Assuming that the SP's reporting on this is accurate, Thiel seems to have been way too overconfident in his private meetups with Stanford students. Again, this may end up being nothing in terms of Gawker's last-ditch legal fight, but for Thiel to gloat to students about his secret legal actions seems really dumb and careless. Hopefully (for his sake), he didn't say much more than that to Stanford students about the Gawker case.

CalChris 9y ago

I think you meant damage to the free press rather than to free speech.

dtornabene 9y ago

sadly you're getting downvoted into gray, but I have a feeling you're wrong for a different reason, Thiel will be remembered for many deeply authoritarian things, one of which will be his assault on the journalism. Gawker was a flawed organization, but they were also doing a fair amount of journalism that no one else would, not the least of which was sexual harassment allegations against people like Louis C.K. that are only now seeing the light.

phil21 9y ago
And then proceeded to sexually harass others via their platform. They needed to go, and they were not a net positive to society. The best quote on the topic (pretty sure I saved it from a HN comment) I've seen is: > The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
- dtornabene 9y ago
  Not even sure what I'm supposed to say to "we need millionaires to take out journalists, the only way, really". As for "sexually harass others via their platform" .... what does that even mean? Who? How, exactly? What a bizarre comment.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]