Thiel Vs. Gawker

[Martell Spy]

Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War With Gawker

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html

[Dr. Pepper]

Surprised there haven't been more comments on this.  

It can be easy to cheer on Thiel because the Gawker is just such a despicable gossip rag. But, the idea of a group of billionaire being able to bankrupt newspapers, especially the small outlets, for whatever reason that pisses them off is chilling.  I think it was last year that Mother Jones technically won a suit against a billionaire, but really they lost because they were being sued for something like $74,999 and then ended up spending nearly two million on all of the various court and attorney fees.  Things like this only need to happen a handful of time for a non-profit investigative journalist outlet like Mother Jones to be bankrupted out of business and that would be a HUGE loss.  

I don't really understand the legal barriers that used to be in place to prevent this from happening or why they were removed.  Surely they can be implemented again?  

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

Surprised there haven't been more comments on this.  

It can be easy to cheer on Thiel because the Gawker is just such a despicable gossip rag. But, the idea of a group of billionaire being able to bankrupt newspapers, especially the small outlets, for whatever reason that pisses them off is chilling.  I think it was last year that Mother Jones technically won a suit against a billionaire, but really they lost because they were being sued for something like $74,999 and then ended up spending nearly two million on all of the various court and attorney fees.  Things like this only need to happen a handful of time for a non-profit investigative journalist outlet like Mother Jones to be bankrupted out of business and that would be a HUGE loss.  

I don't really understand the legal barriers that used to be in place to prevent this from happening or why they were removed.  Surely they can be implemented again?  

 

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with the Mother Jones case, but I I don't think there ever were legal barriers, as far as assisting someone with a lawsuit. However, I did read a good legal point about this Gawker case. They're being sued not over speech, but a sex tape. That's important because it's highly unlikely an organization like say the New York Times would find themselves in a mess like this.

And yes Gawker is a gossip rag, and they would have faced punishment for the sex tape. Thiel didn't need to get involved for that to happen. Certain moves made by the lawyer suing Gawker, such as making it so Gawker could not use their insurance to pay the ruling, make it look likely Thiel's involvement was about completely burying the Gawker organization. And Thiel has admitted as such, calling it philanthropy. 

I don't agree that it is philanthropy. I don't think Thiel deciding what online materials are available to us is any better than having some government agency making such decisions. Apparently this is only one case though, and not a common scenario due to the sex tape. 

[Dr. Pepper]

I could have sworn I'd read something about how litigation funding, as it's done today, wasn't all that possible in the past, though it's highly likely I read it wrong or got confused with the legal jargon.  There are a lot of articles discussing just how big a business third-party litigation funding has become, and how lucrative it can be. 

The Mother Jones story (haven't vetted that article, just fyi) was a billionaire donor to a Mitt Romney super PAC who got mad because MJ's reporting on it included that he'd supported anti-gay measures.  He got mad, sued for just a dollar less than $75k because apparently $75k involves a different level or court or something. He's been quoted as having a history of threatening expensive defamation suits against media outlets, which is easily seen as him using his wealth to either strongarm the media to write what he wants them to write (or not write) and/or trying to bankrupt some of the smaller outlets, like MJ.  

 

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

I could have sworn I'd read something about how litigation funding, as it's done today, wasn't all that possible in the past, though it's highly likely I read it wrong or got confused with the legal jargon.  There are a lot of articles discussing just how big a business third-party litigation funding has become, and how lucrative it can be. 

The Mother Jones story (haven't vetted that article, just fyi) was a billionaire donor to a Mitt Romney super PAC who got mad because MJ's reporting on it included that he'd supported anti-gay measures.  He got mad, sued for just a dollar less than $75k because apparently $75k involves a different level or court or something. He's been quoted as having a history of threatening expensive defamation suits against media outlets, which is easily seen as him using his wealth to either strongarm the media to write what he wants them to write (or not write) and/or trying to bankrupt some of the smaller outlets, like MJ.  

 

 

 

So, according to that article you linked the problem with the Mother Jones lawsuit is mostly a problem with there being no federal law and only about 25 states having a law covering those sued recovering legal fees. In about half the country's states, including Idaho, those sued are responsible for their own legal fees, even if they win. There's exceptions if the case can be shown to have been frivolous, but this is hard in their case since the judge deemed the lawsuit not frivolous for some reason. (the lawsuit was filed in Idaho)

So, in short, while there is a similarity of very rich men throwing money to damage/destroy media organizations, Gawker was actually being punished for something. Mother Jones technically was not, as they won their case. They were just screwed by a stupid patchwork of state laws. There really needs to be a federal law on that. The law worked as it should otherwise.

[Vastet]

Tbh, I doubt even a billionaire could truly hurt a media unless they bought it or that media opened itself up to attack. The clear hypocrisy that Gawker has shown in the Hogan issue (in severe contrast to sister site Jezebel condemning anyone would do what Gawker has done, provided the victim in question were female instead of male) opens them up to this kind of attack. They have noone to blame but themselves.

[Martell Spy]

You were right Dr. Pepper, both about there being past legal protections, and about the similarity between the Gawker and Mother Jones cases. As mentioned in this article, there used to be protections against funding lawsuits. However, this created barriers for things like someone without money getting help with filing an environmental lawsuit. 

And the similarity in the two cases is billionaires using nearly endless funds to repeatedly sue or help sue. I think with the Mother Jones thing though it's not yet nearly as bad because he is only threatening more action. Now threats can chill speech, but not nearly as much if he took more actual action. The thing with the Gawker thing, is it appears Thiel will continue scouting for more and more lawsuits to harm Gawker. I'd guess there's a very good chance Gawker wins it's appeal and gets the large damages reduced. However, they may not survive an ongoing billionaire vendetta.

Also, in the long term, this abuse by Thiel could cause our laws to get changed. And this may get in the way of people without money getting help with lawsuits. 

 

Gawker was irresponsible, but the precedent Peter Thiel is setting is dangerous

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11784036/gawker-peter-thiel-dangerous

[SerHaHa]

Same old story, same old song and dance.  The law applies and works differently for you if you have money.  If any regular joe had articles about him printed in Gawker which he found offensive, or even just annoying, all he could do would be to write about it in youtube comments somewhere.  Billionaires like Thiel however, can throw $ at lawyers, who in turn throw some of that $ at investigators of their own, and also more $ at filling civil suits, which nobody save the rich can afford to lose...$ being the common thread here.

This is a big part of the problem with the country right now IMO - the relationship between money and the law.  It's NOT a fair and just system, and never will be - I know of no solution that could work.  It is what it is.  That said, Gawker and other publications which publish careless, even completely false stories - and know that they are false beforehand - should take note, that if you pick on someone with more money and power than you, in a system such as ours, you do so at your own peril.  Gawker recently published an article about this, it was actually pretty funny, a semi-olive branch type of thing, lamenting the whole idea that the Hulk Hogan lawsuit win alone will end their company should their appeal be defeated.  Most entertaining.

[DanteGabriel]

If anyone thinks this was really about Thiel having a high-minded stance about journalistic standards, he also funded right wing propagandist James O'Keefe. So really, this is about ethics in tech journalism.

[all swedes are racist]

6 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

Same old story, same old song and dance.  The law applies and works differently for you if you have money.  If any regular joe had articles about him printed in Gawker which he found offensive, or even just annoying, all he could do would be to write about it in youtube comments somewhere.  Billionaires like Thiel however, can throw $ at lawyers, who in turn throw some of that $ at investigators of their own, and also more $ at filling civil suits, which nobody save the rich can afford to lose...$ being the common thread here.

This is a big part of the problem with the country right now IMO - the relationship between money and the law.  It's NOT a fair and just system, and never will be - I know of no solution that could work.  It is what it is.  That said, Gawker and other publications which publish careless, even completely false stories - and know that they are false beforehand - should take note, that if you pick on someone with more money and power than you, in a system such as ours, you do so at your own peril.  Gawker recently published an article about this, it was actually pretty funny, a semi-olive branch type of thing, lamenting the whole idea that the Hulk Hogan lawsuit win alone will end their company should their appeal be defeated.  Most entertaining.

Sorry, but this attitude makes no sense to me. Decry the abuses of power allowed the ultra rich, but the media -- one organ of society that has the potential to act as a check to those abuses -- fuck them? I for one expect journalistic media of all stripes to regularly and consistently "pick on" those with "more money and power" as needed... Otherwise, what's the point?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way to stop Peter Thiel from funding his personal vendetta without also stopping, say, the ACLU from funding civil rights lawsuits.

Our democratic institutions depend on people excercising discretion to not do things their legally allowed to. This discretion neither Thiel nor Gawker have demonstrated.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

16 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

Same old story, same old song and dance.  The law applies and works differently for you if you have money.  If any regular joe had articles about him printed in Gawker which he found offensive, or even just annoying, all he could do would be to write about it in youtube comments somewhere.  Billionaires like Thiel however, can throw $ at lawyers, who in turn throw some of that $ at investigators of their own, and also more $ at filling civil suits, which nobody save the rich can afford to lose...$ being the common thread here.

This is a big part of the problem with the country right now IMO - the relationship between money and the law.  It's NOT a fair and just system, and never will be - I know of no solution that could work.  It is what it is.  That said, Gawker and other publications which publish careless, even completely false stories - and know that they are false beforehand - should take note, that if you pick on someone with more money and power than you, in a system such as ours, you do so at your own peril.  Gawker recently published an article about this, it was actually pretty funny, a semi-olive branch type of thing, lamenting the whole idea that the Hulk Hogan lawsuit win alone will end their company should their appeal be defeated.  Most entertaining.

 I think there's an important distinction here.  Yes, Thiel was mad about an article they printed about him.  But he didn't sue on his own behalf.  He didn't flood Gawker with frivolous lawsuits.  He loaned/doanted money to other people hurt by Gawker who would not have been able to afford their own lawsuit.  On the one hand you're saying that Thiel shouldn't be allowed to use his billions to achieve justice for himself, but on the other you're saying that Gawker should be able to use their billions to prevent the less affluent from getting justice.

[Commodore]

The hand-wringing over Thiel is just tribalism. He's a libertarian and Gawker is leftist. If that were reversed, the hand-wringers would be cheering Thiel on. 

Lawfare is in general, a bad thing. What Gawker does is morally reprehensible (they are awful people), but not sure if it's illegal (could be 1st Amendment protected if they themselves did not steal the info). 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 I think there's an important distinction here.  Yes, Thiel was mad about an article they printed about him.  But he didn't sue on his own behalf.  He didn't flood Gawker with frivolous lawsuits.  He loaned/doanted money to other people hurt by Gawker who would not have been able to afford their own lawsuit.  On the one hand you're saying that Thiel shouldn't be allowed to use his billions to achieve justice for himself, but on the other you're saying that Gawker should be able to use their billions to prevent the less affluent from getting justice

First, don't think you think if it was wise to sue Gawker over outing him he would have done so? It's clear he's fine with doing a vendetta,so I don't think he'd balk if it seemed feasible as part of his overall scheme. I'd have to look into it, but I would guess it was either Thiel's desire to keep things secret (either temporarily or until later) or he was told he'd lose such a lawsuit and in such a way as it'd be deemed frivolous. Pretty sure Gawker couldn't successfully be sued on that for libel. Not only was it a true statement, but it wasn't even fully secret. It was something known about the Silicon Valley corporate community, but not to the wider public. There were likely journalists that knew about it but did not publish it, because they didn't want to hinder future access.

Second, Hogan didn't need Thiel to get justice. He's both a rich man and had a good case it appears. Gawker was going to be punished. It needs to be understood that Hogan and the lawyer running the lawsuit in essence became employees to Thiel for the duration of this lawsuit, and he used them as willing pawns in his vendetta. Hogan likely did this because he deemed it advantageous to himself. Not only does he get funding, but he likely is fine with Gawker being hurt more.

This is important because with Thiel running the lawsuit, the goal becomes not Hogan justice, but how much damage can be done to Gawker in this particular lawsuit? And how does that damage contribute to Thiel's overall vendetta and goal of burying Gawker? In particular the lawyer trying to prevent Gawker from using their insurance to pay claims. This move seems more about aiding Thiel's revenge than about Hogan being recompensated for damages.

Now, there's 2 other lawsuits Thiel is funding we know about, I believe. If these 3 lawsuits don't completely sink Gawker, and Thiel actually stops after, then it's not that big deal. This will then blow over. However, part of the problem is that Thiel's involvement in the Hogan case was secret until recent. How many other secret torpedoes is Thiel launching at Gawker?

There's two concerns here. One, Thiel's abuse of the laws may lead to later law changes and harm those who need to get funded for lawsuits. And two, Gawker may be destroyed. Now, some people say that last is perfectly fine, Gawker is so awful. But they have 3 million readers or so. You are basically saying, fuck those people. Even more worrisome, one man, Thiel, is deciding what materials online will be available to those people, as well as anyone else that might click over to Gawker.

Now, I don't think this will happen, but in an extreme scenario Thiel could continue his vendetta for years, and not only destroy Gawker, but work it out so that ends up owning it. He could then extercise full editorial control there and over their other publications. This is an unlikely scenario, but it's the natural conclusion of "Well he's a billionaire, it's his money, he can do as he likes." 

There's also questions of free speech being chilled in general. How many journalists will think twice about writing about Thiel in any way other than positive in the future. Indeed, part of Thiel's real goal here may be to help curate the already sycophantic Silicon Valley media.

 

 

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

The hand-wringing over Thiel is just tribalism. He's a libertarian and Gawker is leftist. If that were reversed, the hand-wringers would be cheering Thiel on. 

 

This is pretty funny. Thiel's actions seem to indicate is isn't a libertarian at all. Or more precisely, he's a libertarian when it's convenient to him.

This goes well beyond party lines. There are both Democrats and Republicans more devoted to freedom of speech than others in their particular faction. Much like there are both liberals and conservatives against things like NSA spying.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

First, don't think you think if it was wise to sue Gawker over outing him he would have done so? It's clear he's fine with doing a vendetta,so I don't think he'd balk if it seemed feasible as part of his overall scheme. I'd have to look into it, but I would guess it was either Thiel's desire to keep things secret (either temporarily or until later) or he was told he'd lose such a lawsuit and in such a way as it'd be deemed frivolous. Pretty sure Gawker couldn't successfully be sued on that for libel. Not only was it a true statement, but it wasn't even fully secret. It was something known about the Silicon Valley corporate community, but not to the wider public. There were likely journalists that knew about it but did not publish it, because they didn't want to hinder future access.

Second, Hogan didn't need Thiel to get justice. He's both a rich man and had a good case it appears. Gawker was going to be punished. It needs to be understood that Hogan and the lawyer running the lawsuit in essence became employees to Thiel for the duration of this lawsuit, and he used them as willing pawns in his vendetta. Hogan likely did this because he deemed it advantageous to himself. Not only does he get funding, but he likely is fine with Gawker being hurt more.

This is important because with Thiel running the lawsuit, the goal becomes not Hogan justice, but how much damage can be done to Gawker in this particular lawsuit? And how does that damage contribute to Thiel's overall vendetta and goal of burying Gawker? In particular the lawyer trying to prevent Gawker from using their insurance to pay claims. This move seems more about aiding Thiel's revenge than about Hogan being recompensated for damages.

Now, there's 2 other lawsuits Thiel is funding we know about, I believe. If these 3 lawsuits don't completely sink Gawker, and Thiel actually stops after, then it's not that big deal. This will then blow over. However, part of the problem is that Thiel's involvement in the Hogan case was secret until recent. How many other secret torpedoes is Thiel launching at Gawker?

There's two concerns here. One, Thiel's abuse of the laws may lead to later law changes and harm those who need to get funded for lawsuits. And two, Gawker may be destroyed. Now, some people say that last is perfectly fine, Gawker is so awful. But they have 3 million readers or so. You are basically saying, fuck those people. Even more worrisome, one man, Thiel, is deciding what materials online will be available to those people, as well as anyone else that might click over to Gawker.

Now, I don't think this will happen, but in an extreme scenario Thiel could continue his vendetta for years, and not only destroy Gawker, but work it out so that ends up owning it. He could then extercise full editorial control there and over their other publications. This is an unlikely scenario, but it's the natural conclusion of "Well he's a billionaire, it's his money, he can do as he likes." 

There's also questions of free speech being chilled in general. How many journalists will think twice about writing about Thiel in any way other than positive in the future. Indeed, part of Thiel's real goal here may be to help curate the already sycophantic Silicon Valley media.

Thiel is out for revenge, no doubt about it.  But I don't agree with the premise that media outlets should be allowed to write whatever they want about anybody and never have to face the consequences.  Free speech and freedom of press does mean freedom from consequences.

Yes, Thiel could end up owning Gawker.  And Murdoch owns Fox, and Arianna Huffington owns(ed) the Huffington Post and so on and so forth.  All media is owned, and ultimately controlled by one person or small group of persons who decides what material will be available.  That's hardly new or controversial.

Journalists should think twice about writing about Thiel.  They should think two, three times before writing about anyone.  Irresponsible journalism and partisan journalism is a big problem and journalists/media should be on notice that they can't write hit pieces without being prepared for consequences.

[SpaceChampion]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

 

This is pretty funny. Thiel's actions seem to indicate is isn't a libertarian at all. Or more precisely, he's a libertarian when it's convenient to him.

This goes well beyond party lines. There are both Democrats and Republicans more devoted to freedom of speech than others in their particular faction. Much like there are both liberals and conservatives against things like NSA spying.

 

He's the sort of libertarian that fantasizes we'd all be much better off under a neoreactionary technocratic monarchy.

[JGP]

By the two faced teats of Nienna! That, sir, was a creepy read. 

Never heard of this 'movement.' 

[all swedes are racist]

Wow. Holt Fasner would be proud

[Martell Spy]

Quote

He's the sort of libertarian that fantasizes e'd all be much better off under a neoreactionary technocratic monarchy.

Interesting. And quite creepy. I had heard of the sea steading stuff, but had only heard hints of the reactionary stuff.  Kind of reminds me of the professor that founds a monarchy in Oregon in Dies the Fire. I wouldn't take this that seriously if Thiel wasn't now acting out in the real world. If Gawkler did go down, that would be the first feel of his booted foot. If Thiel wants to run off to the Pacific Ocean however, I'm all for it. I'll help him pack.