4 ms·

Not sure why you're being downvoted. You walked the line between "being okay with Peter Thiel destroying gawker" and "being okay with a billionaire destroying p

Not sure why you're being downvoted. You walked the line between "being okay with Peter Thiel destroying gawker" and "being okay with a billionaire destroying press", so you're probably getting downvoted from both sides. :] SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take things from the person who wronged you, by force. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-systems-very-different-from-ours/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-syste... But the issue is maybe you're not a great fighter, or you're old. You might not be comfortable taking things from someone by force. That's okay, because medieval iceland allowed you to sell the lawsuit/conviction to another party, and allow them to collect. It resulted in a system that actually had a most valid lawsuits being pursued, because there were people willing to carry them out themselves. Kinda cool, and it feels similar to how Peter Thiel supported Hulk Hogan. And I'm pretty okay with it!

slowandlow 9y ago
Why did Thiel not just bring a lawsuit himself if he was truly being defamed? I don't see the how he is justified in hiding behind someone else's lawsuit. Seems cowardly to me; not a crime but speaks to his character.
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  Gawker (apparently) said that Thiel was gay. That's not defamation, it's a fact, so you can't sue.
  - slowandlow 9y ago
    So Gawker exercised free speech and he was allowed to tag along in an unrelated lawsuit. That sounds like a big loophole in the system. Say what you will about these "smut peddlers" like Gawker but that is an attack on free speech. I amazed more folks in the comments aren't upset about the constitution being perverted in such a way.
    - ng12 9y ago
      If it's a loophole they created it, with a big neon sign saying "please put us out of business". Would it make you feel any better if Hogan never got his day in court because he didn't have the money? Gawker was using their warchest to avoid litigation for completely legitimate lawsuits -- no matter how you feel about Thiel they got what was coming to them.
      - slowandlow 9y ago
        Gawker got what they deserved but this sets a dangerous precedent.
        ng12 9y ago
        What precedent is that? That if you skirt the law somebody might do something about it? That having a good legal team does not give you freedom from your legal responsibilities as a media outlet?
iClaudiusX 9y ago
That justice is not blind to personal wealth is a travesty, not something to celebrate.
- ng12 9y ago
  The travesty is that Gawker probably would have gotten away with it based on the fact that Hogan didn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit. It really has nothing to do with Thiel.
- civilian 9y ago
  Gawker was also getting away with using personal wealth as a way to defer justice. Gawker also buried people suing them with legal fees. I agree we should move towards a costless or more efficient legal system, but in the meantime, the Hogan vs. Gawker lawsuit was a victory for the good guys.

slowandlow 9y ago

Why did Thiel not just bring a lawsuit himself if he was truly being defamed? I don't see the how he is justified in hiding behind someone else's lawsuit. Seems cowardly to me; not a crime but speaks to his character.

tryingagainbro 9y ago
Gawker (apparently) said that Thiel was gay. That's not defamation, it's a fact, so you can't sue.
- slowandlow 9y ago
  So Gawker exercised free speech and he was allowed to tag along in an unrelated lawsuit. That sounds like a big loophole in the system. Say what you will about these "smut peddlers" like Gawker but that is an attack on free speech. I amazed more folks in the comments aren't upset about the constitution being perverted in such a way.
  - ng12 9y ago
    If it's a loophole they created it, with a big neon sign saying "please put us out of business". Would it make you feel any better if Hogan never got his day in court because he didn't have the money? Gawker was using their warchest to avoid litigation for completely legitimate lawsuits -- no matter how you feel about Thiel they got what was coming to them.
    - slowandlow 9y ago
      Gawker got what they deserved but this sets a dangerous precedent.
      - ng12 9y ago
        What precedent is that? That if you skirt the law somebody might do something about it? That having a good legal team does not give you freedom from your legal responsibilities as a media outlet?

iClaudiusX 9y ago

That justice is not blind to personal wealth is a travesty, not something to celebrate.

ng12 9y ago
The travesty is that Gawker probably would have gotten away with it based on the fact that Hogan didn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit. It really has nothing to do with Thiel.
civilian 9y ago
Gawker was also getting away with using personal wealth as a way to defer justice. Gawker also buried people suing them with legal fees. I agree we should move towards a costless or more efficient legal system, but in the meantime, the Hogan vs. Gawker lawsuit was a victory for the good guys.