8 ms·

Peter Thiel (worth 2.5b) destroyed Gawker with a contribution of 10m to Hulk Hogan's legal fund. If Bezos contributed a similar proportion of his fortune (112b

Peter Thiel (worth 2.5b) destroyed Gawker with a contribution of 10m to Hulk Hogan's legal fund. If Bezos contributed a similar proportion of his fortune (112b), he would be contributing 448m. Not only is the National Enquirer about to be in the shitfight of its life, but every single other lawsuit it's going to be facing will be armed to the teeth with amazing legal talent. Couldn't have happened to nicer people.

njarboe 8y ago
You surly meant 2.5b not 2.5m.
- JimmyAustin 8y ago
  Fixed!
saagarjha 8y ago
> worth 2.5m You might want to multiply that by three orders of magnitude ;)
- JimmyAustin 8y ago
  Fixed!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2048 8y ago
Not sure that billionaires destroying media outlets is something to be cheered on.
- kajecounterhack 8y ago
  Not sure national enquirer is a "media outlet." In general I agree that the fourth estate needs protection but I don't think arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    > arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified. Who gets to decide what is arbitrary?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  Since media outlets don't engage in blackmail, there are none involved in this dispute. This is a billionaire versus a filthy, blackmailing rag.
  - neveroffensive 8y ago
    Nothing you've said here is wrong. The enquirer doesn't meet the minimum standards of journalism, they are a blackmail rag. I think this could actually be proven with empirical data.
- JimmyAustin 8y ago
  "Billionaries destroying media outlets" is an emergent property from two facts: - Some people can't/don't get justice because they can't afford a lawsuit. - Rich people can give money to poor people to get them that justice. In order for Bezos to destroy them legally, they still need to have messed up in some way.
  - jawnv6 8y ago
    wasn't it generally agreed that the Gawker-destroying opinion probably would have been reversed if they could've kept it afloat for an appeal? the bar for "messed up" isn't where you'd think
  - untog 8y ago
ahoy 8y ago
cool legal system we have where you can literally pay to win
- kentm 8y ago
  What Gawker did to Hulk Hogan was illegal and unethical. And when they were told to take the video down by a judge they refused to do so. Gawker lost because they were in the wrong and were destroyed because they refused to just take the L
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    Its OK the celebrate the ends while also criticizing the morality of the means
    - kentm 8y ago
      My remark was more about how often this case is trotted out as setting a concerning precedent. Gawker basically acted like jackasses and blew their own leg off, and Thiel was just there to make sure they didn't miss. It's hard for me to see that as setting a morally troubling precedent, and it doesn't fit neatly into the narrative of "Billionaire uses money to destroy enemies" unless you omit most of the relevant details. Presumably they could have avoided the entire situation by not being shady and breaking the law. And the rich having better access to legal representation is not something that was changed in any way with regards to this case.
      - sidlls 8y ago
        I took it differently: it's an indictment of a system in which a person without Thiel's means is much less likely to obtain justice.
  - meko 8y ago
    What happened to freedom of the press?
    - 8y ago
Novashi 8y ago
Here's the cherry on top: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1093654471157170177 https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1093654471157170177 AMI probably just broke their non-prosecution agreement with the SDNY
- everdev 8y ago
  Reminds me of the Fyre documentary on Netflix and how he went back to scamming while he was on trial. If you build a livelihood through morally corrupt means it's apparently hard to stop even after you get caught. Not surprised to see Rodger Stone mixed up in this either while he's awaiting trial. Apparently, he knows Jeff Bezos' mistress' brother who is the prime suspect in obtaining the photos: https://www.thedailybeast.com/bezos-investigators-question-the-brother-of-his-mistress-lauren-sanchez-in-national-enquirer-leak-probe https://www.thedailybeast.com/bezos-investigators-question-t...
- tptacek 8y ago
  What AMI did is unlikely to be criminal.
  - comex 8y ago
    From the New York Penal Law article 135.60 (AMI is headquartered in New York): > A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, [..] by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will: [..] > 5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; [..] > Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1093658366583422978 https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/10936583665834229...
debt 8y ago
The Gawker suit revealed Hulk Hogan to be a racist shitheal. This one reveals Bezos to be a general shitheal. I find it completely ridiculous Bezos’ fucking asinine assertion this was directed by Trump or his people. As much as I absolutely hate Trump and his people, Bezos is clearly doubling down and attempting to destroy AMI by cooking up some wild conspiracy involving the Saudis and Trump and AMI. Here we go.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jahlove 8y ago
  I don't know what evidence he Bezos may or may-not have, but I certainly wouldn't put it past Trump to call his good friend David Pecker and tell him to press on the Bezos scandal. Trump is certainly on record picking a fight with Bezos because of WaPo stories.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  nothing in his letter suggests it was directed by "trump or his people"
  - debt 8y ago
    Apparently you didn’t read his post: Exhibit A: “My ownership of the Washington Post is a complexifier for me. It’s unavoidable that certain powerful people who experience Washington Post news coverage will wrongly conclude I am their enemy. President Trump is one of those people, obvious by his many tweets.” Exhibit B: “In the AMI letters I’m making public, you will see the precise details of their extortionate proposal: They will publish the personal photos unless Gavin de Becker and I make the specific false public statement to the press that we “have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.” If we do not agree to affirmatively publicize that specific lie.” That last line more or less admits Bezos thinks this is politically motivated as denying that would constitute him lying.
    - 8y ago
aswanson 8y ago
The owner is a Trump affiliated scumbag who ran "catch and kill" cover for Donald during the primaries. These people are so moronic and unethical. I can't wait for this era of American Idiocracy to be over.
- r00fus 8y ago
  It’ll still be here after Trump. He’s just the largest symptom.
  - aswanson 8y ago
    Agreed. It's just sad that a mag that runs stories on Kennedy conspiracy theories and rat boy stories runs cover for a reality show dolt that has his hands on the nuke codes, and half the U.S.electorate cheers that on. Real life is far more cynical than sarcasm.
- aswanson 8y ago
  References: https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/media/trump-catch-and-kill/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/media/trump-catch-and-kill/...
7e 8y ago
Jeff has tremendous resources, but a measly blog post is his counter-punch? He really is screwed.
- jackvalentine 8y ago
  How so?
doe88 8y ago
> he would be contributing 448m. Maybe he could pull off a buy & kill of the whole NI.

njarboe 8y ago

You surly meant 2.5b not 2.5m.

JimmyAustin 8y ago
Fixed!

saagarjha 8y ago

> worth 2.5m You might want to multiply that by three orders of magnitude ;)

JimmyAustin 8y ago
Fixed!

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

throwaway2048 8y ago

Not sure that billionaires destroying media outlets is something to be cheered on.

kajecounterhack 8y ago
Not sure national enquirer is a "media outlet." In general I agree that the fourth estate needs protection but I don't think arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified. Who gets to decide what is arbitrary?
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Since media outlets don't engage in blackmail, there are none involved in this dispute. This is a billionaire versus a filthy, blackmailing rag.
- neveroffensive 8y ago
  Nothing you've said here is wrong. The enquirer doesn't meet the minimum standards of journalism, they are a blackmail rag. I think this could actually be proven with empirical data.
JimmyAustin 8y ago
"Billionaries destroying media outlets" is an emergent property from two facts: - Some people can't/don't get justice because they can't afford a lawsuit. - Rich people can give money to poor people to get them that justice. In order for Bezos to destroy them legally, they still need to have messed up in some way.
- jawnv6 8y ago
  wasn't it generally agreed that the Gawker-destroying opinion probably would have been reversed if they could've kept it afloat for an appeal? the bar for "messed up" isn't where you'd think
- untog 8y ago

ahoy 8y ago

cool legal system we have where you can literally pay to win

kentm 8y ago
What Gawker did to Hulk Hogan was illegal and unethical. And when they were told to take the video down by a judge they refused to do so. Gawker lost because they were in the wrong and were destroyed because they refused to just take the L
- cwkoss 8y ago
  Its OK the celebrate the ends while also criticizing the morality of the means
  - kentm 8y ago
    My remark was more about how often this case is trotted out as setting a concerning precedent. Gawker basically acted like jackasses and blew their own leg off, and Thiel was just there to make sure they didn't miss. It's hard for me to see that as setting a morally troubling precedent, and it doesn't fit neatly into the narrative of "Billionaire uses money to destroy enemies" unless you omit most of the relevant details. Presumably they could have avoided the entire situation by not being shady and breaking the law. And the rich having better access to legal representation is not something that was changed in any way with regards to this case.
    - sidlls 8y ago
      I took it differently: it's an indictment of a system in which a person without Thiel's means is much less likely to obtain justice.
- meko 8y ago
  What happened to freedom of the press?
  - 8y ago

Novashi 8y ago

Here's the cherry on top: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1093654471157170177 https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1093654471157170177 AMI probably just broke their non-prosecution agreement with the SDNY

everdev 8y ago
Reminds me of the Fyre documentary on Netflix and how he went back to scamming while he was on trial. If you build a livelihood through morally corrupt means it's apparently hard to stop even after you get caught. Not surprised to see Rodger Stone mixed up in this either while he's awaiting trial. Apparently, he knows Jeff Bezos' mistress' brother who is the prime suspect in obtaining the photos: https://www.thedailybeast.com/bezos-investigators-question-the-brother-of-his-mistress-lauren-sanchez-in-national-enquirer-leak-probe https://www.thedailybeast.com/bezos-investigators-question-t...
tptacek 8y ago
What AMI did is unlikely to be criminal.
- comex 8y ago
  From the New York Penal Law article 135.60 (AMI is headquartered in New York): > A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, [..] by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will: [..] > 5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; [..] > Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1093658366583422978 https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/10936583665834229...

debt 8y ago

The Gawker suit revealed Hulk Hogan to be a racist shitheal. This one reveals Bezos to be a general shitheal. I find it completely ridiculous Bezos’ fucking asinine assertion this was directed by Trump or his people. As much as I absolutely hate Trump and his people, Bezos is clearly doubling down and attempting to destroy AMI by cooking up some wild conspiracy involving the Saudis and Trump and AMI. Here we go.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jahlove 8y ago
I don't know what evidence he Bezos may or may-not have, but I certainly wouldn't put it past Trump to call his good friend David Pecker and tell him to press on the Bezos scandal. Trump is certainly on record picking a fight with Bezos because of WaPo stories.
nyolfen 8y ago
nothing in his letter suggests it was directed by "trump or his people"
- debt 8y ago
  Apparently you didn’t read his post: Exhibit A: “My ownership of the Washington Post is a complexifier for me. It’s unavoidable that certain powerful people who experience Washington Post news coverage will wrongly conclude I am their enemy. President Trump is one of those people, obvious by his many tweets.” Exhibit B: “In the AMI letters I’m making public, you will see the precise details of their extortionate proposal: They will publish the personal photos unless Gavin de Becker and I make the specific false public statement to the press that we “have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.” If we do not agree to affirmatively publicize that specific lie.” That last line more or less admits Bezos thinks this is politically motivated as denying that would constitute him lying.
  - 8y ago

aswanson 8y ago

The owner is a Trump affiliated scumbag who ran "catch and kill" cover for Donald during the primaries. These people are so moronic and unethical. I can't wait for this era of American Idiocracy to be over.

r00fus 8y ago
It’ll still be here after Trump. He’s just the largest symptom.
- aswanson 8y ago
  Agreed. It's just sad that a mag that runs stories on Kennedy conspiracy theories and rat boy stories runs cover for a reality show dolt that has his hands on the nuke codes, and half the U.S.electorate cheers that on. Real life is far more cynical than sarcasm.
aswanson 8y ago
References: https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/media/trump-catch-and-kill/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/media/trump-catch-and-kill/...

7e 8y ago

Jeff has tremendous resources, but a measly blog post is his counter-punch? He really is screwed.

jackvalentine 8y ago
How so?

doe88 8y ago

> he would be contributing 448m. Maybe he could pull off a buy & kill of the whole NI.