5 ms·
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 ove
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoThe 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 agoSure, 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
- fallingknife 4y agoYes, this is my point. They were bullies who finally met someone with the resources to stand up to them.