Gawker are scum. They disobeyed a court order. They deserved the lawsuit. If you want freedom of speech to out people and attack everyone, expect people with money to use said money to fight back legally. It's their freedom too.
That an assault on the Tribe is always internally perceived as wild unsubstantiated attacks void of reason (i.e. the anarchy) is kind of interesting in of itself.
I mean we all know conservatives and liberals don't understand each other and talk a different language but there's something interesting here to unpack.
Instead of developing a Babelfish (realtime universal language translator) for ordinary languages, imagine if we could slip a little yellow fish into the ears of liberals and conservatives so they fully comprehended what the others were saying to them.
I imagine their heads would explode. But assuming they did not it would be interesting.
I completely agree and don't get why so many people are so grossly upset.
Peter Thiel didn't use his money to bribe anyone, he didn't do anything illegal for Hulk. The court made a decision and Gawker needs to live with the consequences...
"Later asked by an attorney for Hogan if there was a situation in which a celebrity sex tape might not be newsworthy, Delaurio responded: “If they were a child.”
The attorney then asked him to specify: a child under what age? Daulerio responded: “Four.”"
This was the Gawker editor who came up with the sex tape and story. This sums up the the anything goes interpretation of free speech these people have. (Although he later said he was being flippant, that's even worse in exposing his infantile psychology).
OTOH, Thiel's ruthless use of the suing machine also leaves a bitter taste. This is a case where it's hard to totally root for either side.
FWIW I would never have considered Thiel's actions to be philanthropy. Which is why I was so confused when reading the headline "Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy."
> we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next
Thiel didn't "punish" anyone. Gawker broke the law, and he helped hold them to account via the legal system.
I don't like Thiel one tiny bit. He's a weirdo. But this is, like, the least bad thing a billionaire has ever done to infringe on "free speech". Hypothetically abusing the legal system (eg, many frivolous lawsuits) would be bad, but he hasn't actually done that.
I dunno, I don't see this as any different than when someone gets donations to their legal fund from supporters, or really what the ACLU, EFF, NAACP, etc., do with their legal programs.
This is a great point. If media outlets stopped being so obsessed with publishing anything and everything for clicks (without checking if it was newsworthy, legal or moral to do so), then cases like this would be much fewer and far between.
From the article: "Historically, news publications have treated certain subjects very carefully: if you’re rich and [...] litigious, then [...] organizations will have lawyers do a careful review of anything they write about you [...]"
Well, if they would now have to "do a careful review" of everything they write for the fear of vengeful billionaire going after them, nobody would shed a tear.
He seems to be saying that vetting info about people who are not known to have enough resources to pursue legal remedy themselves is too large a hardship for journalists to endure. In all of the voluminous writing about this topic this week, I have yet to encounter a single good objection to what Thiel is doing. I'm honestly mystified by why so many people are objecting to this.
I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't like by funding any possible lawsuit against them.
But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn't have the right to post this content and didn't care that the courts found against them.
And when you consider that millionaires and billionaires often own media outlets as well, that can be worrying as well. What about a Murdoch esque figure trying to push their own views on society (and discredit opponents) through their newspapers and publications?
What Thiel did here is potentially worrying, but so are the other possibilities from the media site.
The issue to me seems that it is just accepted that you need lots of money to use the law properly. If it was just some rando who had his sex tape published by gawker shouldn't he be able to sue them and materially affect them? That he can't or there is the widely accepted belief that he can't is the problem.
Rich guys have extracted revenge on others since there has been wealth, there is nothing new here except the belief that maybe Hogan somehow wouldn't have had a case without Thiel's help? Or maybe gawker could have delayed and played games to price Hogan out of a law suit or something? How isn't that messed up? Sure I get the fear of tons of frivolous law suits but what about serious ones? The poor can't take part.
The Internet has brought on an entire generation of "journalists" without limits, the pendulum will swing back, that's how things tend to work. Gawker and the others were going to continue to push boundaries in the name of profit, not news, until somebody fought back and it should have been long before a celebrity sex tape. It shouldn't take a billionaire backed lawsuit.
I'll tell you exactly why what Peter Thiel is doing makes him a douchebag. He's doing it in secret. What's up with that? I'll tell you. It's because he wanted to avoid any blowback. He's a vindictive coward that wanted to launder his actions through a racist millionare former pro-wrestler plain and simple.
Philanthropy = funding projects to make the world a better place, without making a financial profit. This legal campaign is clearly philanthropic, whether or not you like the outcome.
'The news that (Peter Thiel) just gave the world a master class in how a billionaire can achieve enormous ends with a relatively modest investment'
Off topic but this case is nothing compared to the master class run by Geoge Soros in showing how a billionaire can pervert democracy by funding massive social engineering in all the countries of the European Union.
As Viktor Orban has said "George Soros has published a comprehensive six-point plan promoting the movement of migrants into Europe, in which he has declared that at least one million Muslims should be let into Europe every year. According to this they must be given safe passage, and Europe should be pleased to receive such an opportunity, rather than try to resist it. He also said that this will cost a lot of money, and he will provide the credit needed".
Hillary Clinton was famous for shutting down free speech - her critics had to go all the way to the supreme Court to protect their right to criticize politicians (see citizens united).
Yeah the median 'media' person has no problem with lawsuits against "racists" or "climate deniers". Low-level government employees should know that only their bosses are entitled to leak with impunity.
The Gawker lawsuit scares 'media' people because some of them realize that someone might hold them accountable for their shoddy (or nonexistent) research, poor sourcing and clickbaity content.
The thing that makes it unusual is that he's acting in secret and actively soliciting lawsuits he has no interest in, and structures the lawsuits to remove incurable claims because he has a personal vendetta against a media outlet that he doesn't like.
If you can't see the difference between working in public against a violent racist organization and a petulant billionaire waiting 7 years to throw a bunch of middle class people out of work, and send a message to the media at large to play nice with him, because he got his feelings hurt, I can't help you.
So the point of the article is complaining that instead of reviewing if publishing some dirt about a few billionaires is within the legal boundaries, Gawker and others might have to do the same if they want to simply throw some dirt about ordinary plebeians as well? (Unpossible! Why would they deserve that?)
And that their plan to continue performing illegal actions because, well, they have bought insurance and can settle their claims with their money has been foiled - well, what has happened to the concept why these laws were made in the first place, that such claims should be an effective deterrent to actually change their behavior?
Gawker made their own bed there. Actions that result in such behavior becoming impractical not only for Gawker, but also for all other publications are (contrary to the OP viewpoint) not only permissible, but even necessary.
Because you need a team of lawyers to know that you shouldn't leak a sextape on your site? Thiel didn't need a team of lawyers to scrutinize every article too, the sextape case was big enough he could know it by himself. The press shouldn't have a free pass to publish every salacious article, and should face the consequences of its actions. Great to see the press establishment defending its cast with such fallacious arguments.
There are so many things wrong with this article that I don't even know where to start.
* Gawker does not deal in journalism any more than Keeping up with the Kardashians does. It's an entertainment company that makes a profit by exposing details of people's lives which other people have no business knowing. There's an argument to be made that the world be better off with that type of gutter "journalism". It's not giving people "news" which they "have a right to know" (the kind of thing for which journalism needs to be protected).
* But if we accept that Gawker has the right to its thing - and it does - then Gawker has to accept the consequences of pissing people off - which is usually solves through litigation insurance. If it gets sued out of existence, it's its own fault, no one else's.
* Thiel did not "take down" or "punish" Gawker. A court of law punished Gawker for breaking the law. The fact that Thiel paid the defendants attorneys is irrelevant. If we have a problem with that, then we could pass laws to disallow third parties from funding other people's law suits which would have terrible consequences (no more ACLU, for example).
* If the argument is that "the person with the most money wins lawsuits", I don't disagree. But that is a problem with the justice system, not Thiel.
* We can't have "freedom of speech" without "freedom to sue", otherwise these entertainment "news" outlets can easily ruin the lives of people for profit (as they do).
44 comments
[ 8.1 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadI mean we all know conservatives and liberals don't understand each other and talk a different language but there's something interesting here to unpack.
Instead of developing a Babelfish (realtime universal language translator) for ordinary languages, imagine if we could slip a little yellow fish into the ears of liberals and conservatives so they fully comprehended what the others were saying to them.
I imagine their heads would explode. But assuming they did not it would be interesting.
If anything, this is not a problem of freedom of speech. This is an old legal problem: "the rich have money to pay the lawyers and the poor don't".
But in this case, Hulk Hogan is 100% right, and Thiel is doing society a favor.
Peter Thiel didn't use his money to bribe anyone, he didn't do anything illegal for Hulk. The court made a decision and Gawker needs to live with the consequences...
A lot of people feel Gawker was a member of their tribe. It's the old "He's a bastard, but he's our bastard" thing.
Because they are regressive libtards. There is no other explanation.
The attorney then asked him to specify: a child under what age? Daulerio responded: “Four.”"
This was the Gawker editor who came up with the sex tape and story. This sums up the the anything goes interpretation of free speech these people have. (Although he later said he was being flippant, that's even worse in exposing his infantile psychology).
OTOH, Thiel's ruthless use of the suing machine also leaves a bitter taste. This is a case where it's hard to totally root for either side.
Criticizing Thiel shouldn't be confused with supporting Gawker , because we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next
Thiel didn't "punish" anyone. Gawker broke the law, and he helped hold them to account via the legal system.
I don't like Thiel one tiny bit. He's a weirdo. But this is, like, the least bad thing a billionaire has ever done to infringe on "free speech". Hypothetically abusing the legal system (eg, many frivolous lawsuits) would be bad, but he hasn't actually done that.
This may seem pedantic, but Gawker didn't break the law. This is a civil case.
>He's a weirdo.
I don't know what to make of this, and it adds nothing to the discussion.
So, the problem isn't that you're being pedantic, it's just that you're plain wrong.
i agree w this comment on twitter: Let's say that Thiel & Gawker is a match made in heaven.
Also the organizations you cite are actually working for the public good, while Thiel is working from a petty personal vendetta.
It contains people who are trying to sue. That counts as a personal vendetta, only arbitrated by the courts.
Your juxtaposition of 'private interest' vs 'public interest' needs work. Evidently they can both be aligned.
Maybe it should move slower then. And report, you know, responsibly.
Well, if they would now have to "do a careful review" of everything they write for the fear of vengeful billionaire going after them, nobody would shed a tear.
But obviously that wont be a solution.
that's why you won't find logical or reasonable arguments from them.
But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn't have the right to post this content and didn't care that the courts found against them.
And when you consider that millionaires and billionaires often own media outlets as well, that can be worrying as well. What about a Murdoch esque figure trying to push their own views on society (and discredit opponents) through their newspapers and publications?
What Thiel did here is potentially worrying, but so are the other possibilities from the media site.
There's no such thing as press today.
Rich guys have extracted revenge on others since there has been wealth, there is nothing new here except the belief that maybe Hogan somehow wouldn't have had a case without Thiel's help? Or maybe gawker could have delayed and played games to price Hogan out of a law suit or something? How isn't that messed up? Sure I get the fear of tons of frivolous law suits but what about serious ones? The poor can't take part.
The Internet has brought on an entire generation of "journalists" without limits, the pendulum will swing back, that's how things tend to work. Gawker and the others were going to continue to push boundaries in the name of profit, not news, until somebody fought back and it should have been long before a celebrity sex tape. It shouldn't take a billionaire backed lawsuit.
Like most things in adversarial law, it looks to me like an atom-blaster that can point both ways.
Off topic but this case is nothing compared to the master class run by Geoge Soros in showing how a billionaire can pervert democracy by funding massive social engineering in all the countries of the European Union.
As Viktor Orban has said "George Soros has published a comprehensive six-point plan promoting the movement of migrants into Europe, in which he has declared that at least one million Muslims should be let into Europe every year. According to this they must be given safe passage, and Europe should be pleased to receive such an opportunity, rather than try to resist it. He also said that this will cost a lot of money, and he will provide the credit needed".
For example, using lawsuits to stifle climate skepticism: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenae...
Hillary Clinton was famous for shutting down free speech - her critics had to go all the way to the supreme Court to protect their right to criticize politicians (see citizens united).
Or see SPLC vs Aryan Nation, which is exactly some wealthy philanthropists funding a lawsuit by a third party: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou...
The only thing new about this is that the mainstream media suddenly notices this stuff hitting closer to home.
The Gawker lawsuit scares 'media' people because some of them realize that someone might hold them accountable for their shoddy (or nonexistent) research, poor sourcing and clickbaity content.
If you can't see the difference between working in public against a violent racist organization and a petulant billionaire waiting 7 years to throw a bunch of middle class people out of work, and send a message to the media at large to play nice with him, because he got his feelings hurt, I can't help you.
Incidentally, middle class people worked for Aryan Nation also.
And that their plan to continue performing illegal actions because, well, they have bought insurance and can settle their claims with their money has been foiled - well, what has happened to the concept why these laws were made in the first place, that such claims should be an effective deterrent to actually change their behavior?
Gawker made their own bed there. Actions that result in such behavior becoming impractical not only for Gawker, but also for all other publications are (contrary to the OP viewpoint) not only permissible, but even necessary.
* Gawker does not deal in journalism any more than Keeping up with the Kardashians does. It's an entertainment company that makes a profit by exposing details of people's lives which other people have no business knowing. There's an argument to be made that the world be better off with that type of gutter "journalism". It's not giving people "news" which they "have a right to know" (the kind of thing for which journalism needs to be protected).
* But if we accept that Gawker has the right to its thing - and it does - then Gawker has to accept the consequences of pissing people off - which is usually solves through litigation insurance. If it gets sued out of existence, it's its own fault, no one else's.
* Thiel did not "take down" or "punish" Gawker. A court of law punished Gawker for breaking the law. The fact that Thiel paid the defendants attorneys is irrelevant. If we have a problem with that, then we could pass laws to disallow third parties from funding other people's law suits which would have terrible consequences (no more ACLU, for example).
* If the argument is that "the person with the most money wins lawsuits", I don't disagree. But that is a problem with the justice system, not Thiel.
* We can't have "freedom of speech" without "freedom to sue", otherwise these entertainment "news" outlets can easily ruin the lives of people for profit (as they do).