8 ms·

Its important to be reminded regularly that there are perfectly legal ways for people with lots of money to endlessly bully people that annoy them. These people

by a2tech 4y ago

Its important to be reminded regularly that there are perfectly legal ways for people with lots of money to endlessly bully people that annoy them. These people/companies have lawyers on retainer that they're already paying so its essentially free for them to file bogus suits and motions to cause havoc in your life. What are you going to do? Sue them back? Thats the world they live in, and its a world that as a small time person or corporation you can not win in (long term). Look at Gawker and Peter Thiel--no matter how you feel personally about what they did, what they published about him was absolutely legal. As a background task his lawyers destroyed that company by keeping them tied up in court cases and funding any one with an axe to grind against them until they were gone.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hackernewds 4y ago
Gawker deserved someone to come after then as Thiel did, for what they did to him, Hulk Hogan and others
- derbOac 4y ago
  For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree. The people Thiel should have gone after are those who leaked to the public. I can't say I read Gawker or was a fan of what they did, or saying it was morally upstanding. But they were the wrong target. It was bizarre to me that Thiel would go after them, except if you look at it as Thiel not really caring about the actual spread of information, and instead look at it as Thiel scaring away any sort of journalist or journalistic organization from scrutinizing him at all on any controversial topics. It just seemed like a classic case of defending the freedom of speech of the morally questionable to protect freedom of speech in general. I don't remember the Hogan case in detail as it's been awhile, but to me Gawker was not the really offending person. It was whoever recorded that. Why Thiel went after Gawker rather than the person who clearly violated expectations of privacy in a way that might land them in jail in many districts is beyond me.
  - Fargoan 4y ago
    If someone secretly recorded you having consensual sex and sold me the footage, you think I have a right to publish that. That's ridiculous. Gawker got what they deserved.
    - a2tech 4y ago
      They didn't pay for it--someone (probably Bubba the Love Sponge) anonymously sent them the footage. He was legally able to record his own home.
      - causi 4y ago
        Florida is a two-party consent state. Everyone featured in a recording not happening in public must consent to being recorded. Both Hogan and Heather claim they didn't know.
      - Fargoan 4y ago
        Ok, well same thing. Hogan was invited over to have sex with Bubba's wife and Bubba secretly filmed it and sent it to a media company.
    - cagenut 4y ago
      are you a world renowned celebrity who goes on radio shows on a near weekly basis to brag about your sexual exploits and genital size to millions of people?
      - Fargoan 4y ago
        No. Who are you referring to? How is that relevant?
        pauldenton 4y ago
        Have you heard Hulk Hogan speaking to Bubba the Love Sponge on radio It is informative to the case
- serf 4y ago
  I think both things can be said : 1) Gawker got what they deserved 2) The legal power of the very rich makes me uneasy, and I don't support such unilateral over-use of the legal system by the very rich. In other words; Gawker got what they deserved, but I don't agree with the methodology behind the counter-attack -- I see it as abusive and indicative of a system that is tilted for one side to win more easily.
  - davidguetta 4y ago
    Yes, and even people like hulk hogan without the support of money are nothing against corporations like gawker. The power scale is kinda Hulk Hogan < Gawker < Peter Thiel < pether Thiel + Hulk Hogan. But in the end power (and money) are always amoral. Its their use which defines it. The only shocking thing is that justice is not free (even in countries in europe where education and healthcare are...).
    - slim 4y ago
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    The problem isn't that Thiel could destroy Gawker. The problem is that you couldn't if they did the same thing to you. Thiel didn't take down Gawker by being richer and more powerful. He took them down in a fair trial because he was right and they were wrong. You would never get that fair trial because it would be millions in legal fees before you got there.
    - pauldenton 4y ago
      Sure, but the point is that Hogan had a Case, and Thiel financed it There are many people who did not have the same time or money as Thiel and Hogan, and those people got justice. Peter Thiel was not the only gay person they outed. Hogan is the not only sex tape they published
      - 4y ago
- calibas 4y ago
  Gawker was certainly trashy journalism, but I think the only lesson anybody learned from that whole experience was "Don't fuck with Peter Thiel". The lesson should have been that Thiel and other billionaires have such enormous influence over governments and courts that he's a direct threat to democratic systems. Just look at how things turned out, Hogan couldn't touch Gawker because of Freedom of the Press, but then Thiel got involved and suddenly the 1st Amendment stopped protecting Gawker. The moment a billionaire got involved the legal system changed. And if you need any more proof that people like Thiel are a threat to democracy, he's currently funding conservative candidates in the US who believe the presidential election was "stolen" from Trump.
  - helloworld11 4y ago
    Funding conservative causes as a wealthy private individual does not make you a threat to democracy., American liberal progressives seem to repeat that notion and get hysterical about this any time it happens, while forgetting the sheer number of extremely rich billionaire progressive supporters of numerous causes they do favor. Are these people then not also threats to democracy? Or does this definition only begin to apply once a billionaire supports a thing you don't approve of?
    - calibas 4y ago
      He's not just funding "conservative causes" he's funding people who are contesting the previous election. He's giving money to people that believe the current government is fraudulent, so yes, that is a threat to our current democratic system. And yes, billionaires who donate to "the left" are a problem as well. Any time enormous amounts of wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few people, it can't help but go against democratic ideals. You used the term "progressive" but both of the main US political parties have been bought out by wealthy interests, and I'd hardly call either "progressive".
    - simiones 4y ago
      If you've ever looked at leftist progressive commentators, they just as often complain of big money in politics for the democrats, or even for leftist causes.
- banannaise 4y ago
  The problem is that what Gawker did to Thiel, while not nice, was legal. If you do something perfectly legal that someone does not like, and that person has sufficient money and/or power, they can simply go hunting for something illegal you've done (there's always something) and aggressively bankroll actions against you. Thiel used Hogan and his case as a proxy to settle a personal beef. This is not dissimilar from the cops tailing activists around in their daily lives, hoping they can find something, anything, to charge them with.
  - kcatskcolbdi 4y ago
    >The problem is that what Gawker did to Thiel, while not nice, was legal. And then what Thiel did to Gawker, while not nice, was legal. If you're going to build a company on the idea of skirting legality in order to ruin people's lives, don't be upset when someone does the same thing to your company.
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      > If you're going to build a company on the idea of skirting legality in order to ruin people's lives, don't be upset when someone does the same thing to your company. It took me a second to realize you were not talking about palantir. Or ebay. Thiel getting angry about a story around his sexuality (it wasn't "outing" him, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32265067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32265067) is pretty fucking hilarious coming from the guy who founded what amounts to a corporate-run NSA.
      - filoleg 4y ago
        I think you are forgetting a significant part of that story, which is that Gawker published it around the time of Thiel's business trip to Saudi Arabia. Given the general attitude in that country towards homosexuality and that it is straight up a crime in SA, not only Gawker was essentially sabotaging his business deal, they were opening him up to physical danger and criminal prosecution.
kemiller2002 4y ago
My mom was an attorney. A really sound piece of advice she gave me was, "Never get into a legal battle with a lawyer. You can't win." What she was saying was that an attorney can essentially sue you for free. (Ok not totally free but you get the point). They can tie you up in legal battles and force you to just waste money on something that is seemingly trivial. The same advice goes for someone who can spend large sums of money and not worry about the consequences. There is this great scene in the movie "From The Hip" where the CEO of a bank assaulted another individual. The scene is his lawyer saying he thinks they can win the case. The CEO responds essentially with "You can't win. I hit him. Just make the case last 3 days so he has to spend more money." That pretty much sums up being rich and the power those people wield.
- jt2190 4y ago
  Can you refine “legal battle” further? Does it imply a complete immediate capitulation on all matters if the opponent is a lawyer, or does it imply something else, like one’s best advantage in this case is to stay out of the courtroom?
  - workingon 4y ago
    - RalfWausE 4y ago
      Why the downvotes? The ONLY way to win against an opponent with much more power than you is to make him believe that you absolutely don't care for consquences and are out there to get him
      - brigandish 4y ago
        Whether that is true or not there is a big difference between what you wrote (stating an opinion) and what the other commenter wrote (appearing to advocate violence). That's why it's attracting downvotes. You're attracting them because it's obvious.
seventytwo 4y ago
One more mechanism by which those at the top can reinforce their position.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
So why does the US justice system allow this? It's occupying the whole legal system with time wasters. I'm glad I don't work in legal, it sounds so drawn out and boring.
- scottyah 4y ago
  The justice system is kinda made for handling all these disputes that people can’t talk out themselves. The lawyers are incentivized to drag it out because they almost always get paid by the hour.
eterevsky 4y ago
Based on this summary of the Gawker/Thiel story, it seems like they mostly brought it upon themselves: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/56kz4d/til_that_after_gawker_ran_a_story_exposing/d8k7m8i/ https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/56kz4d/til_t....
- chriscappuccio 4y ago
  Conspiracy by Ryan Holiday is the definitive account of this story. It's very well written and full of intrigue. A great book, one of the best I've read in years. The only part of the book that seems out of place is near the end, where you see Holiday's speculation on Thiel's (who Holiday clearly admires) association with Trump (who Holiday clearly despises.) He simply can't understand why Thiel would associate with Trump at all. https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intrigue/dp/0735217645/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1KOF5KPXGAQBJ https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intri...
stuckinhell 4y ago
I agree with you up to a point. However there are real limits to what the rich and powerful can do before the peasants revolt. The current American Elites have completely forgotten the concept of "noblesse oblige" and I believe we are currently seeing the start of a peasant rebellion. It starts with rejection of the mainstream media, academics, and other "experts". In the case of Peter Thiel, he is extremely hated among emerging factions of the radical left and dissident right.

by a2tech 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hackernewds 4y ago

Gawker deserved someone to come after then as Thiel did, for what they did to him, Hulk Hogan and others

derbOac 4y ago
For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree. The people Thiel should have gone after are those who leaked to the public. I can't say I read Gawker or was a fan of what they did, or saying it was morally upstanding. But they were the wrong target. It was bizarre to me that Thiel would go after them, except if you look at it as Thiel not really caring about the actual spread of information, and instead look at it as Thiel scaring away any sort of journalist or journalistic organization from scrutinizing him at all on any controversial topics. It just seemed like a classic case of defending the freedom of speech of the morally questionable to protect freedom of speech in general. I don't remember the Hogan case in detail as it's been awhile, but to me Gawker was not the really offending person. It was whoever recorded that. Why Thiel went after Gawker rather than the person who clearly violated expectations of privacy in a way that might land them in jail in many districts is beyond me.
- Fargoan 4y ago
  If someone secretly recorded you having consensual sex and sold me the footage, you think I have a right to publish that. That's ridiculous. Gawker got what they deserved.
  - a2tech 4y ago
    They didn't pay for it--someone (probably Bubba the Love Sponge) anonymously sent them the footage. He was legally able to record his own home.
    - causi 4y ago
      Florida is a two-party consent state. Everyone featured in a recording not happening in public must consent to being recorded. Both Hogan and Heather claim they didn't know.
    - Fargoan 4y ago
      Ok, well same thing. Hogan was invited over to have sex with Bubba's wife and Bubba secretly filmed it and sent it to a media company.
  - cagenut 4y ago
    are you a world renowned celebrity who goes on radio shows on a near weekly basis to brag about your sexual exploits and genital size to millions of people?
    - Fargoan 4y ago
      No. Who are you referring to? How is that relevant?
      - pauldenton 4y ago
        Have you heard Hulk Hogan speaking to Bubba the Love Sponge on radio It is informative to the case
serf 4y ago
I think both things can be said : 1) Gawker got what they deserved 2) The legal power of the very rich makes me uneasy, and I don't support such unilateral over-use of the legal system by the very rich. In other words; Gawker got what they deserved, but I don't agree with the methodology behind the counter-attack -- I see it as abusive and indicative of a system that is tilted for one side to win more easily.
- davidguetta 4y ago
  Yes, and even people like hulk hogan without the support of money are nothing against corporations like gawker. The power scale is kinda Hulk Hogan < Gawker < Peter Thiel < pether Thiel + Hulk Hogan. But in the end power (and money) are always amoral. Its their use which defines it. The only shocking thing is that justice is not free (even in countries in europe where education and healthcare are...).
  - slim 4y ago
- fallingknife 4y ago
  The problem isn't that Thiel could destroy Gawker. The problem is that you couldn't if they did the same thing to you. Thiel didn't take down Gawker by being richer and more powerful. He took them down in a fair trial because he was right and they were wrong. You would never get that fair trial because it would be millions in legal fees before you got there.
  - pauldenton 4y ago
    Sure, but the point is that Hogan had a Case, and Thiel financed it There are many people who did not have the same time or money as Thiel and Hogan, and those people got justice. Peter Thiel was not the only gay person they outed. Hogan is the not only sex tape they published
    - 4y ago
calibas 4y ago
Gawker was certainly trashy journalism, but I think the only lesson anybody learned from that whole experience was "Don't fuck with Peter Thiel". The lesson should have been that Thiel and other billionaires have such enormous influence over governments and courts that he's a direct threat to democratic systems. Just look at how things turned out, Hogan couldn't touch Gawker because of Freedom of the Press, but then Thiel got involved and suddenly the 1st Amendment stopped protecting Gawker. The moment a billionaire got involved the legal system changed. And if you need any more proof that people like Thiel are a threat to democracy, he's currently funding conservative candidates in the US who believe the presidential election was "stolen" from Trump.
- helloworld11 4y ago
  Funding conservative causes as a wealthy private individual does not make you a threat to democracy., American liberal progressives seem to repeat that notion and get hysterical about this any time it happens, while forgetting the sheer number of extremely rich billionaire progressive supporters of numerous causes they do favor. Are these people then not also threats to democracy? Or does this definition only begin to apply once a billionaire supports a thing you don't approve of?
  - calibas 4y ago
    He's not just funding "conservative causes" he's funding people who are contesting the previous election. He's giving money to people that believe the current government is fraudulent, so yes, that is a threat to our current democratic system. And yes, billionaires who donate to "the left" are a problem as well. Any time enormous amounts of wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few people, it can't help but go against democratic ideals. You used the term "progressive" but both of the main US political parties have been bought out by wealthy interests, and I'd hardly call either "progressive".
  - simiones 4y ago
    If you've ever looked at leftist progressive commentators, they just as often complain of big money in politics for the democrats, or even for leftist causes.
banannaise 4y ago
The problem is that what Gawker did to Thiel, while not nice, was legal. If you do something perfectly legal that someone does not like, and that person has sufficient money and/or power, they can simply go hunting for something illegal you've done (there's always something) and aggressively bankroll actions against you. Thiel used Hogan and his case as a proxy to settle a personal beef. This is not dissimilar from the cops tailing activists around in their daily lives, hoping they can find something, anything, to charge them with.
- kcatskcolbdi 4y ago
  >The problem is that what Gawker did to Thiel, while not nice, was legal. And then what Thiel did to Gawker, while not nice, was legal. If you're going to build a company on the idea of skirting legality in order to ruin people's lives, don't be upset when someone does the same thing to your company.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    > If you're going to build a company on the idea of skirting legality in order to ruin people's lives, don't be upset when someone does the same thing to your company. It took me a second to realize you were not talking about palantir. Or ebay. Thiel getting angry about a story around his sexuality (it wasn't "outing" him, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32265067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32265067) is pretty fucking hilarious coming from the guy who founded what amounts to a corporate-run NSA.
    - filoleg 4y ago
      I think you are forgetting a significant part of that story, which is that Gawker published it around the time of Thiel's business trip to Saudi Arabia. Given the general attitude in that country towards homosexuality and that it is straight up a crime in SA, not only Gawker was essentially sabotaging his business deal, they were opening him up to physical danger and criminal prosecution.

kemiller2002 4y ago

My mom was an attorney. A really sound piece of advice she gave me was, "Never get into a legal battle with a lawyer. You can't win." What she was saying was that an attorney can essentially sue you for free. (Ok not totally free but you get the point). They can tie you up in legal battles and force you to just waste money on something that is seemingly trivial. The same advice goes for someone who can spend large sums of money and not worry about the consequences. There is this great scene in the movie "From The Hip" where the CEO of a bank assaulted another individual. The scene is his lawyer saying he thinks they can win the case. The CEO responds essentially with "You can't win. I hit him. Just make the case last 3 days so he has to spend more money." That pretty much sums up being rich and the power those people wield.

jt2190 4y ago
Can you refine “legal battle” further? Does it imply a complete immediate capitulation on all matters if the opponent is a lawyer, or does it imply something else, like one’s best advantage in this case is to stay out of the courtroom?
- workingon 4y ago
  - RalfWausE 4y ago
    Why the downvotes? The ONLY way to win against an opponent with much more power than you is to make him believe that you absolutely don't care for consquences and are out there to get him
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Whether that is true or not there is a big difference between what you wrote (stating an opinion) and what the other commenter wrote (appearing to advocate violence). That's why it's attracting downvotes. You're attracting them because it's obvious.

seventytwo 4y ago

One more mechanism by which those at the top can reinforce their position.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

So why does the US justice system allow this? It's occupying the whole legal system with time wasters. I'm glad I don't work in legal, it sounds so drawn out and boring.

scottyah 4y ago
The justice system is kinda made for handling all these disputes that people can’t talk out themselves. The lawyers are incentivized to drag it out because they almost always get paid by the hour.

eterevsky 4y ago

Based on this summary of the Gawker/Thiel story, it seems like they mostly brought it upon themselves: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/56kz4d/til_that_after_gawker_ran_a_story_exposing/d8k7m8i/ https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/56kz4d/til_t....

chriscappuccio 4y ago
Conspiracy by Ryan Holiday is the definitive account of this story. It's very well written and full of intrigue. A great book, one of the best I've read in years. The only part of the book that seems out of place is near the end, where you see Holiday's speculation on Thiel's (who Holiday clearly admires) association with Trump (who Holiday clearly despises.) He simply can't understand why Thiel would associate with Trump at all. https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intrigue/dp/0735217645/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1KOF5KPXGAQBJ https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intri...

stuckinhell 4y ago

I agree with you up to a point. However there are real limits to what the rich and powerful can do before the peasants revolt. The current American Elites have completely forgotten the concept of "noblesse oblige" and I believe we are currently seeing the start of a peasant rebellion. It starts with rejection of the mainstream media, academics, and other "experts". In the case of Peter Thiel, he is extremely hated among emerging factions of the radical left and dissident right.