5 ms·

the entire saga with gawker media, for one thing.

by lucretian 8y ago

misiti3780 8y ago
just so we are clear, you do not like that fact that he paid hogans legal costs ?
- jhowell 8y ago
  I think that's taking the teeth out of it a little bit. I believe that he began working for Hogan in secret seeking revenge for being outed.
  - xienze 8y ago
    Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Hogan's case was a legitimate one, he just lacked the funding to see it through. AND you're forgetting that Gawker could've avoided the whole thing if they had obeyed the earlier court order to take the video down.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      Hogan had agreed with Gawker to take part ownership of Gawker including revenues, and then that was reneged upon after meeting with Thiel's (his) lawyers again, and similar after multiple points of near settlement. The damages were then upped to ridiculous amounts. Financial / economic (not emotional) damages were listed at $50M. Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $30-40M (edit: from $25M), and is now estimated at $8M - though most of that has been stripped by divorce, before any of this happened. I am not sure how someone whose likely career income didn't reach $50M can now, in retirement, state that he suffered $50M in purely economic damages from this (remember, the emotional damage is separate, as is the punitive) - from what? Not from residuals on old WWF repeats - he would still be entitled to these. The occasional celebrity endorsement? I can't see any realistic justification that his earning power for the rest of his life would total $50M, let alone that $50M only covers the fraction of his income that he _lost_ because of this.
      - xienze 8y ago
        Maybe a message needed to be sent that journalists aren't above disobeying court orders. Perhaps they should've done the right thing when they still had the chance. Everything else is just whining about how something that could happen (a judgement against them), did.
        FireBeyond 8y ago
        That's a matter for the court to decide, then. Not for a plaintiff to claim non-existent or dubious factual claims as to lost income.
        xienze 8y ago
        It sounds like the court did think his claim was accurate, I'm pretty sure the judge has the ability to make decisions on what damages should be.
        FireBeyond 8y ago
        Well, not for nothing, the initial award was $140M. That has been reduced by over $100M to $31M...
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Yeah, there was a lot more to it than that. And while I personally found Gawker trashy and not worth a lot of respect, Thiel had profile pictures on open social media accounts of him shirtless on gay cruises. Short of a formal press release saying "I am gay", this wasn't any particular revelation. (As to the "well, it's still noone's business" - while I agree, the courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" "by virtue of the undue or oversized influence they wield or are capable of wielding" - so Thiel had little legal claim to his own situation, so used someone else as a proxy for his own grievances).
    - matthewrobertso 8y ago
      The courts have also held that gawker should not exist anymore
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
        That's... obtuse. They held that Gawker should not exist anymore because they became insolvent/ bankrupt due to this. Not because of the quality/moral fiber (or lack thereof) of their business model.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  Just so we are clear: Hogan and Gawker had arranged to settle. Hogan was even going to be offered part ownership of Gawker, and had agreed to that. Until his (I mean Thiel's) lawyers met with him again. And then he withdrew that offer. And then after winning the lawsuit, withdrawing the only claim that would allow Gawker's insurance to allow Hogan to recoup some of his claimed damages (including an "estimated $50M loss of _future_ earnings, for a man who has only made $25M in his career and retirement so far). Let's be very clear, Thiel's involvement in this was much more than "paid legal costs". Regardless of the right or wrongs of thing, it is a generally accepted concept in modern societies and legal systems that you should have the right to face your opponent, not for them to have a legal 'proxy' or puppet acting at their behest. Was Hogan wronged? Absolutely. But, as noted above, he'd agreed to settle until Thiel (and/or his lawyers) stepped in (again). He'd also settled with the person who _made_ the nonconsensual recording _and_ sold it... for _1/55,000th_ what he claimed in damages from Gawker.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    let's also not forget that the reason Thiel had a vendetta against Gawker is that they outed him publicly. They were a horrible gossip rag and I have very little sympathy for them given their actions (which extend far beyond what they did to Thiel and Hogan).
    - psnake 8y ago
      No they didn't. He was out to a wide circle of people already, let alone that publishing that fact is in no way libelous or defamatory. Feelings about Gawker aside, if they had really outed him and caused him damage because of it, he would have sued them for that instead of searching for another case he could latch onto and bankroll.
      - beaconstudios 8y ago
        I don't think it has to be about damage. I can understand how such an imposition might make him want revenge on a personal level. At the end of the day it's important to let people come out in a way they choose. He may well have already been out to friends and family but that doesn't mean all is done and dusted, especially for a public figure.

the entire saga with gawker media, for one thing.

misiti3780 8y ago

just so we are clear, you do not like that fact that he paid hogans legal costs ?

jhowell 8y ago
I think that's taking the teeth out of it a little bit. I believe that he began working for Hogan in secret seeking revenge for being outed.
- xienze 8y ago
  Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Hogan's case was a legitimate one, he just lacked the funding to see it through. AND you're forgetting that Gawker could've avoided the whole thing if they had obeyed the earlier court order to take the video down.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Hogan had agreed with Gawker to take part ownership of Gawker including revenues, and then that was reneged upon after meeting with Thiel's (his) lawyers again, and similar after multiple points of near settlement. The damages were then upped to ridiculous amounts. Financial / economic (not emotional) damages were listed at $50M. Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $30-40M (edit: from $25M), and is now estimated at $8M - though most of that has been stripped by divorce, before any of this happened. I am not sure how someone whose likely career income didn't reach $50M can now, in retirement, state that he suffered $50M in purely economic damages from this (remember, the emotional damage is separate, as is the punitive) - from what? Not from residuals on old WWF repeats - he would still be entitled to these. The occasional celebrity endorsement? I can't see any realistic justification that his earning power for the rest of his life would total $50M, let alone that $50M only covers the fraction of his income that he _lost_ because of this.
    - xienze 8y ago
      Maybe a message needed to be sent that journalists aren't above disobeying court orders. Perhaps they should've done the right thing when they still had the chance. Everything else is just whining about how something that could happen (a judgement against them), did.
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
        That's a matter for the court to decide, then. Not for a plaintiff to claim non-existent or dubious factual claims as to lost income.
        xienze 8y ago
        It sounds like the court did think his claim was accurate, I'm pretty sure the judge has the ability to make decisions on what damages should be.
        FireBeyond 8y ago
        Well, not for nothing, the initial award was $140M. That has been reduced by over $100M to $31M...
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  Yeah, there was a lot more to it than that. And while I personally found Gawker trashy and not worth a lot of respect, Thiel had profile pictures on open social media accounts of him shirtless on gay cruises. Short of a formal press release saying "I am gay", this wasn't any particular revelation. (As to the "well, it's still noone's business" - while I agree, the courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" "by virtue of the undue or oversized influence they wield or are capable of wielding" - so Thiel had little legal claim to his own situation, so used someone else as a proxy for his own grievances).
  - matthewrobertso 8y ago
    The courts have also held that gawker should not exist anymore
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      That's... obtuse. They held that Gawker should not exist anymore because they became insolvent/ bankrupt due to this. Not because of the quality/moral fiber (or lack thereof) of their business model.
FireBeyond 8y ago
Just so we are clear: Hogan and Gawker had arranged to settle. Hogan was even going to be offered part ownership of Gawker, and had agreed to that. Until his (I mean Thiel's) lawyers met with him again. And then he withdrew that offer. And then after winning the lawsuit, withdrawing the only claim that would allow Gawker's insurance to allow Hogan to recoup some of his claimed damages (including an "estimated $50M loss of _future_ earnings, for a man who has only made $25M in his career and retirement so far). Let's be very clear, Thiel's involvement in this was much more than "paid legal costs". Regardless of the right or wrongs of thing, it is a generally accepted concept in modern societies and legal systems that you should have the right to face your opponent, not for them to have a legal 'proxy' or puppet acting at their behest. Was Hogan wronged? Absolutely. But, as noted above, he'd agreed to settle until Thiel (and/or his lawyers) stepped in (again). He'd also settled with the person who _made_ the nonconsensual recording _and_ sold it... for _1/55,000th_ what he claimed in damages from Gawker.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  let's also not forget that the reason Thiel had a vendetta against Gawker is that they outed him publicly. They were a horrible gossip rag and I have very little sympathy for them given their actions (which extend far beyond what they did to Thiel and Hogan).
  - psnake 8y ago
    No they didn't. He was out to a wide circle of people already, let alone that publishing that fact is in no way libelous or defamatory. Feelings about Gawker aside, if they had really outed him and caused him damage because of it, he would have sued them for that instead of searching for another case he could latch onto and bankroll.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      I don't think it has to be about damage. I can understand how such an imposition might make him want revenge on a personal level. At the end of the day it's important to let people come out in a way they choose. He may well have already been out to friends and family but that doesn't mean all is done and dusted, especially for a public figure.