Thiel Vs. Gawker

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

 

I haven't seen anyone in this thread advocate that media outlets should be allowed to write whatever they want about anybody and never face consequences. As I posted before, Gawker was already being punished. The system was working. Thiel's involvement wasn't needed.

Yes, Thiel pursuing a vendetta and ending up owning Gawker is both new and controversial. Murdoch and Huffingtion did not acquire their businesses this way. If you're going to act like this is normal, then bring up real examples.

Irresponsible journalists can be sued or fired. The system was working fine and Gawker was going to get punished for being irresponsible. We really don't need vigilante billionaires going around and taking down media outlets. 

[Commodore]

16 hours 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.

I agree, there's nothing liberatarian about the lawfare Thiel is engaging in. A libertarian would focus on better ways to improve privacy/security/encryption rather than resorting to litigation. 

My point is the reason it's become an issue suddenly is because of the tribes Thiel/Gawker belong to. 

[Spring Bass]

A strong national anti-SLAPP law coupled with disclosure requirements for litigation financing above a certain amount would probably mitigate any potential abuse. If a billionaire really did try to bankrupt a newspaper with frivolous lawsuits, the suits would get dismissed quickly and the billionaire would have to pay the legal fees of the newspaper (or better yet, impose triple legal fees if the suit is ruled a violation of the law). 

[Martell Spy]

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/06/jeff-bezos-is-refashioning-himself-into-the-valleys-lone-defender-of-journalism.html

 

Jeff Bezos Is Refashioning Himself Into the Valley’s Lone Defender of Journalism

[Martell Spy]

Gawker Media files for bankruptcy
Company files for Chapter 11 to protect assets from seizure by Hulk Hogan

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/gawker-files-for-bankruptcy-to-protect-assets-from-hogan-004593

[sperry]

I don't see what the issue is here.  He bankrolled a legitimate lawsuit that won at trial on the merits.  The press has tons of protections under the law, they will be fine should they operate within the law.

 

It is possible that the laws surrounding frivolous lawsuits and litigation financing need to be revisited to prevent potential abuse, but this is not such a case, nor even close to such a case.

[David Selig]

Gawker is a terrible organization, but 140 mln. in damages for publishing a freaking sex tape is absolutely ridiculous.

[Squab]

Aren't the damages so high because a judge told Gawker to remove the sex tape and they said no and then tweeted: "A judge told us to take down our Hulk Hogan sex tape post. We won't.",  basically a big fuck off to the courts?

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, the more interesting question is: Is a leaked sex tape actually news (worthy)? I mean that it is deep intrusion into the privacy of the individuals depcited is beyond question (at least imo). So what was the actual news there to justify that?

Hulk Hogan is a swinger? Hulk Hogan has sex? Hulk Hogan can still get a boner, despite years of probable steroid abuse? None of that is actually interesting. And they could have made the point without showing the Hulkster in action. Being a celebrity and being a public good is not the same thing.

That Thiel seems to be on a vendetta against gawker for outing some of his friends looks very likely to say the very least. But I think gawker is a very poor example if you want to make it about the freedom of press.

[Yagathai]

You may not like gawker, but it's still a terrible precedent. Just because something is technically legal doesn't mean that it's right, and if you can't see why a billionaire dictating which news outlets live and die is terrible for a free and open society, you're so shortsighted you probably can't see your own nose.

[Squab]

4 minutes ago, Yagathai said:

billionaire dictating which news outlets live and die

The billionaire did not dictate anything. The billionaire funded a court case which found Gawker had to pay 140M. If they make money exposing peoples personal lives and ignoring court orders, they must have expected one day this would happen. Also, Gawker is not dead, yet. It filed for chapter 11 to give itself a chance to reorganize.  Its temporary protection.  If its worth saving someone will buy it.

Can you see your own nose?

[sperry]

2 hours ago, Yagathai said:

You may not like gawker, but it's still a terrible precedent. Just because something is technically legal doesn't mean that it's right, and if you can't see why a billionaire dictating which news outlets live and die is terrible for a free and open society, you're so shortsighted you probably can't see your own nose.

 

The billionaire did not dictate antyhing. Said billionaire can't do anything if that organization isn't doing something illegal.

[baxus]

Said billionaire can drain their resources in costly litigation, though.

[Martell Spy]

Thiel actually dictated how the lawsuit would be fought. Presumably he'd also have dictated how the other two lawsuits he was funding were fought. This effects things like the person suing refusing to settle and trying to make it so Gawker can't use it's insurance to pay the damages. Its very important, both for a long campaign against Gawker, and for a one shot kill. If your goal is to destroy a media organization, you make each battle as damaging and expensive as possible. Then on to the next, and the next.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Gawker is innocent or did not deserve to be punished/sued. Gawker would have been punished without Thiel's involvement. Likely there would have been a settlement with Hulk's lawyer. And part of it would have been paid by Gawker's insurance. Gawker's rates would have went up, I assume. And similar results with the other two lawsuits. Gawker would have likely survived, yet paid a price.

Gawker, may continue, however, depending on who ends up buying it. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

14 hours ago, Yagathai said:

You may not like gawker, but it's still a terrible precedent. Just because something is technically legal doesn't mean that it's right, and if you can't see why a billionaire dictating which news outlets live and die is terrible for a free and open society, you're so shortsighted you probably can't see your own nose.

I am really not a huge fan of Thiel in general, BUT I really think he has a valid point here, and his wrath towards gawker is righteous. Gawker's business model consists of exposing the private lives (violating their privacy) people and shaming them publicly. And they try to do that under the cloak of journalism. Afterall, sex between two consenting adults is nothing shady/illegal. Now, celebrity shaming is really not the same thing as investigative journalism, and the latter should be protected. Thiel feels (and rightly so imo) that gawker crossed a line, and now he makes an example of them. I bet you would not be too happy, if there was a sex video of you on the net published without your consent. And no, but I am not a celebrity is not a good response to that.

[DanteGabriel]

Looks like Thiel's legal hatchet man is also suing Gawker on behalf of some guy who may or may not have created Donald Trump's hairpiece.

Quote

One day after the Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel revealed his clandestine legal attack on Gawker Media to the New York Times, Gawker reporter Ashley Feinberg published a lengthy investigation that sought to solve the enduring mystery of Donald Trump’s infamous mane, which she described as a “cotton candy hairspray labyrinth.”

Thiel has portrayed Gawker as a force for evil, but Feinberg’s article—which drew potential connections between Trump and the work of a $60,000-a-pop hair-extension company called Ivari International—still went over rather well, drawing praise from staffers at the Times, the Wall Street Journal, and The Atlantic; and at least three winners of the Pulitzer Prize.

Even David Simon, the award-winning reporter-turned-screenwriter andfrequent critic of Gawker, offered his accolades, arguing that if the U.S. press had investigated the Bush Administration’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction with the same energy, the Iraq War might have been avoided.

But if you were under the impression that praise-worthy journalism is somehow inoculated against campaigns like Thiel’s, you’d be mistaken. Last week, Thiel’s lawyer-for-hire, Charles J. Harder, sent Gawker a letter on behalf of Ivari International’s owner and namesake, Edward Ivari, in which Harder claims that Feinberg’s story was “false and defamatory,” invaded Ivari’s privacy, intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and committed “tortious interference” with Ivari’s business relations. Harder enumerates 19 different purportedly defamatory statements—almost all of which were drawn from several publicly available lawsuits filed against Ivari.

Harder’s demands included the immediate removal of the story from Gawker, a public apology, the preservation of “all physical and electronic documents, materials and data in your possession” related to the story, and, notably, that we reveal our sources. 

http://gawker.com/now-peter-thiels-lawyer-wants-to-silence-reporting-on-t-1781918385

(The referenced original Gawker investigation into Trump's hair-thing is actually pretty solid)

Hulk Hogan, Peter Thiel, Donald Trump. It's like all the creepy fucked up end-times-are-here stories are converging in one place.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

I am really not a huge fan of Thiel in general, BUT I really think he has a valid point here, and his wrath towards gawker is righteous. Gawker's business model consists of exposing the private lives (violating their privacy) people and shaming them publicly. And they try to do that under the cloak of journalism. Afterall, sex between two consenting adults is nothing shady/illegal. Now, celebrity shaming is really not the same thing as investigative journalism, and the latter should be protected. Thiel feels (and rightly so imo) that gawker crossed a line, and now he makes an example of them. I bet you would not be too happy, if there was a sex video of you on the net published without your consent. And no, but I am not a celebrity is not a good response to that.

 

I agree that the sex video is over the line. But why did Thiel need to be involved? You're acting as if Gawker was not going to be punished without Thiel's involvement. That isn't the case and I've stated such several times in this thread.

It's a pretty easy case to make that Gawker did a vile thing and deserved punishment. But if you feel that Thiel needed to be involved to punish them harder, then perhaps you aren't satisfied with our current justice system. Do we really need the court of Thiel as a back up justice system because our current one is so horrible? Who else should Thiel go after for us?

And let us remember, that Thiel did this not as a public service, but as revenge over being outed. Perhaps you disagree with how he was outed, I don't know. It all seems extreme to me though. 

[Liver and Onions]

13 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Looks like Thiel's legal hatchet man is also suing Gawker on behalf of some guy who may or may not have created Donald Trump's hairpiece.

http://gawker.com/now-peter-thiels-lawyer-wants-to-silence-reporting-on-t-1781918385

(The referenced original Gawker investigation into Trump's hair-thing is actually pretty solid)

Hulk Hogan, Peter Thiel, Donald Trump. It's like all the creepy fucked up end-times-are-here stories are converging in one place.

Wow... that is getting really shady. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

 

I agree that the sex video is over the line. But why did Thiel need to be involved? You're acting as if Gawker was not going to be punished without Thiel's involvement. That isn't the case and I've stated such several times in this thread.

It's a pretty easy case to make that Gawker did a vile thing and deserved punishment. But if you feel that Thiel needed to be involved to punish them harder, then perhaps you aren't satisfied with our current justice system. Do we really need the court of Thiel as a back up justice system because our current one is so horrible? Who else should Thiel go after for us?

And let us remember, that Thiel did this not as a public service, but as revenge over being outed. Perhaps you disagree with how he was outed, I don't know. It all seems extreme to me though. 

Thiel is out on a personal vendetta against gawker. I never denied that. Thiel saw an opportunity to gut gawker and took it. 

I am not exactly sure where you are heading with the second paragraph. Thiel is not setting up a secondary court system, he is playing within the rules of the US court system. So it sounds more like you want a reform of the US justice system. Or did Thiel do something illegal?

Yes, Thiel is doing that to satisfy his lust for vengeance, again nobody is really denying this. But even the most selfish actions sometimes coincide with a public service, and I think this one of those rare occasions. I thougt Thiel himself did not really mind himself getting outed (he was more or less out of the closet already), but he took offense over some of his friends getting caught in the crossfire (them getting outed in the process), which had some repercussions for some of them. And he was not particularly happy about that collateral damage. 

[Yagathai]

So you think it's OK that a billionaire gets to dictate what stories a free press decides to report?