5 ms·

> He was intolerant of Gawker Gawker outed him, and leaked a sex tape of Hulk Hogan (and did a bunch of other really terrible things). He was lucky enough to h

> He was intolerant of Gawker Gawker outed him, and leaked a sex tape of Hulk Hogan (and did a bunch of other really terrible things). He was lucky enough to have the money to bring them justice. I've honestly never heard of anyone taking Gawker's side in this.

rectang 9y ago
Billionaires buying the justice needed to wipe out a major news outlet... in secret... This is an argument where people who feel differently about "money as free speech" tend to have wildly divergent opinions. I find it quite alarming that billionaires have the power to squelch the free press.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  I think you could make the argument that illegally leaking a sex tape isn't "free press". Granted I don't think you should have to be a billionaire to achieve justice, but sadly it costs a lot of money to take on a company like Gawker. Many people look at what Thiel did as a public service.
  - rectang 9y ago
    > Many people look at what Thiel did as a public service. How they feel about that is going to closely track partisan allegiance. And what constitutes "justice", in the context of a sex tape or other journalistic malpractice? Tens of millions of dollars? Uncountable millions? Any number of millions so long as it's enough to put the company out of business? I don't agree that shutting down Gawker was the appropriate remedy. Damages yes, annihilation no.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      > I don't agree that shutting down Gawker was the appropriate remedy. Damages yes, annihilation no. Couldn't disagree more.
      - rectang 9y ago
        Over a sex tape? Good grief, As a result, in your world and mine, the press now has to fear secret reprisals should they offend the wrong billionaire. It is now more dangerous to report on the powerful. You can't fight them with your free speech, because you can't even know who's financing the campaign against you, or even that it's happening.
        malvosenior 9y ago
        Good. As long as they stick to reporting factual information and not releasing private gossip and sex tapes they have nothing to worry about. Like I said, I wish you didn’t need billions to keep them honest but at least someone can do it.
        rectang 9y ago
        > As long as they stick to reporting factual information and not releasing private gossip and sex tapes they have nothing to worry about. There's no constraint on billionaires as to what might motivate them to spend their money secretly financing lawsuits. Reporting on say, their bribery of a government official, could also persuade a billionaire to adopt Thiel's tactics.
        malvosenior 9y ago
        They still have to win the case though, they can’t just sue without justification. Again, I wish this option was available to more people but I won’t begrudge billionaires for financing legal defenses for people the media have illegally attacked.
        rectang 9y ago
        They don't have to win. It suffices to overwhelm the legal resources of their opponent.
        9y ago
zimpenfish 9y ago
You don't have to take Gawker's side to be anti-Thiel's side in this instance, though.

rectang 9y ago

Billionaires buying the justice needed to wipe out a major news outlet... in secret... This is an argument where people who feel differently about "money as free speech" tend to have wildly divergent opinions. I find it quite alarming that billionaires have the power to squelch the free press.

malvosenior 9y ago
I think you could make the argument that illegally leaking a sex tape isn't "free press". Granted I don't think you should have to be a billionaire to achieve justice, but sadly it costs a lot of money to take on a company like Gawker. Many people look at what Thiel did as a public service.
- rectang 9y ago
  > Many people look at what Thiel did as a public service. How they feel about that is going to closely track partisan allegiance. And what constitutes "justice", in the context of a sex tape or other journalistic malpractice? Tens of millions of dollars? Uncountable millions? Any number of millions so long as it's enough to put the company out of business? I don't agree that shutting down Gawker was the appropriate remedy. Damages yes, annihilation no.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    > I don't agree that shutting down Gawker was the appropriate remedy. Damages yes, annihilation no. Couldn't disagree more.
    - rectang 9y ago
      Over a sex tape? Good grief, As a result, in your world and mine, the press now has to fear secret reprisals should they offend the wrong billionaire. It is now more dangerous to report on the powerful. You can't fight them with your free speech, because you can't even know who's financing the campaign against you, or even that it's happening.
      - malvosenior 9y ago
        Good. As long as they stick to reporting factual information and not releasing private gossip and sex tapes they have nothing to worry about. Like I said, I wish you didn’t need billions to keep them honest but at least someone can do it.
        rectang 9y ago
        > As long as they stick to reporting factual information and not releasing private gossip and sex tapes they have nothing to worry about. There's no constraint on billionaires as to what might motivate them to spend their money secretly financing lawsuits. Reporting on say, their bribery of a government official, could also persuade a billionaire to adopt Thiel's tactics.
        malvosenior 9y ago
        They still have to win the case though, they can’t just sue without justification. Again, I wish this option was available to more people but I won’t begrudge billionaires for financing legal defenses for people the media have illegally attacked.
        rectang 9y ago
        They don't have to win. It suffices to overwhelm the legal resources of their opponent.
        9y ago

zimpenfish 9y ago

You don't have to take Gawker's side to be anti-Thiel's side in this instance, though.