Tech Billionaire Peter Thiel Secretly Bankrolled Hulk Hogan's Lawsuit Against Gawker: Reports (gawker.com)

If you're a powerful Silicon Valley billionaire, and there's a media house which actively points out flaws in your investments, can you do something about it? If you're Peter Thiel, you certainly can. The New York Times and Forbes magazine have independently reported that Thiel has been funding a steady stream of lawsuits -- including three different ones filed by Hulk Hogan -- to destroy Gawker Media. Gawker reports: Gawker and Valleywag, Gawker Media's defunct tech gossip vertical, have often written critically of Thiel, a self-identified libertarian (and, it turns out, a California delegate for Donald Trump) and his investments, covering the failure of his hedge fund Clarium Capital, his right-wing politics, and his personal life. In just the last month, Gawker Media's tech site Gizmodo published a series of stories on Facebook's use of "news curators" to manipulate the site's "trending" module, sparking a congressional investigation into the social network's practices.Jay Rosen, media critic and a professor of journalism at New York University, said: Trying to kill a publication you don't like by funding lawsuits against them isn't very libertarian, is it?

Comments

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Virtucon]

So, what's the big issue? This guy saw an opportunity to attack an opponent albeit in the shadows.

"Attack the enemy where they are not" - Art of War

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

Press freedom is an essential element of any democracy. So pretty obviously the big issue with rich bastards using their wealth to try to shut down publications that criticise them is that it clearly works against that principle. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society where the rich felt that they could do whatever the fuck they wanted and never be called out on it by the media, because media organisations feared this kind of attack if they did so.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Fire_Wraith]

So if he decides he doesn't like you, he can sue the crap out of you on multiple fronts, without his own name getting dragged into it? You're fine with trying to fight off all those lawsuits, where you'll go bankrupt even if you win?

The ability of the rich to try and sue someone into compliance, or at least silence, is nothing new, and is troubling on its own, but at least when they're suing directly they open themselves to discovery. Donald Trump once sued a journalist for claiming he was worth less than $250 million, but that led to him being forced to release tax documents to the court as part of it, so everyone could see what the truth actually was. This is different, because he's not even a first party to it, he's just recruiting and bankrolling people to sue them.

And while Gawker isn't exactly a pure and noble martyr that we should feel bad about, to put it mildly, the notion that someone rich enough can use the court system in this manner to destroy a news organization, even a terrible tabloid one, just because he doesn't like what it says, should scare us. It's a chilling effect that may have significant repercussions on reporting on the activities of the rich and powerful in general.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

>So if he decides he doesn't like you, he can sue the crap out of you on multiple fronts, without his own name getting dragged into it? You're fine with trying to fight off all those lawsuits, where you'll go bankrupt even if you win?

It's a fine tactic to use against someone who would out you as gay against your will. What Gawker's circle does is not journalism, it's character assassination based on political beliefs.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a filthy marxist propaganda paper that fuel racism and sexism.

And they have every right to be, as endowed by their creator and recognized by the United States government. The Bill of Rights means nothing if it only protects the people we like.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Jiro]

So if he decides he doesn't like you, he can sue the crap out of you on multiple fronts, without his own name getting dragged into it? You're fine with trying to fight off all those lawsuits, where you'll go bankrupt even if you win?

This lawsuit wasn't mainly trouble for Gawker because they would go bankrupt even if they won. It was trouble for Gawker because Gawker committed the unethical behavior described in the lawsuit and had to pay for it. There's a big difference between suing innocent people to make them pay for defense, and suing guilty people to make them pay for their crimes.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[MightyMartian]

It's hard to justify the claim that publicly outing someone's sexuality or making a private sex tape available is an example of press freedom. There's no solid lemon test here, unfortunately, but certainly courts, when confronted with press freedom versus rights to privacy, there's a "public good" question that has to be asked. What good was served by releasing the Hulk Hogan video?

Re: The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[jmcvetta]

In Soviet America you have all the rights you can afford to sue for!

Sure it's libertarian

[Firethorn]

Jay Rosen, media critic and a professor of journalism at New York University, said: Trying to kill a publication you don't like by funding lawsuits against them isn't very libertarian, is it?

Huh? It's not? Especially when they turn out to be valid lawsuits, it seems a very libertarian thing to do. If a company is wronging people in a way that lawsuits would succeed against them, but aren't normally pressed because those being wronged don't have the money for lawyers, sure, you can fund them.

Hell, I donate to a couple funds for doing just that.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[penguinoid]

Attacking someone with lawsuits is only slightly less libertarian than hiring mercenaries to attack them physically.

Anti-libertarian Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to kill a publication you don't like by funding lawsuits against them isn't very libertarian, is it?

Wow, what bias.

A jury sitting within, and a judge of, the United States legal system may bankrupt Gawker, not Thiel.

Re:Rich people fucking over everyone else

[shaitand]

Who is being fucked over? He's helping people Gawker fucked over.

WTF Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

The comment about Thiel's actions not being very libertarian is trolling. Since when do the editors engage in rampant trolling in the summaries? This is obnoxious.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is that chilling for free press? A horrendous, shitty rag was doing blatantly illegal and unethical shit, and a rich guy made sure they can't just hide behind a wall of expensive lawyers by paying for expensive lawyers for the other side. Justice won, and the shitheads at Gawker will finally have to face some consequences. I hope the Conde Nast guy they outed sues them for everything that's left after Hogan, too.

Re:I'm not sure this is illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said it's illegal. Not everything that's legal is right.

Re:Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does he see government and the legal system as separate entities? How would a weak government enforce legal decisions?

Very Libertarian

[IMightB]

It sounds very libertarian to me, at least he's not whining and bankrolling politicians to pass laws against his interests.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Jason Levine]

First amendment protections from private citizens? No. However, private citizens also don't have the right to shut others up simply because they don't like what the person/group is saying. In the US, people have is the ability to report the truth and not get sued for it being embarrassing to the parties involved. If what Gawker reported about Peter Thiel wasn't true, he could have sued them. Presumably, it was true (or Gawker used enough "allegedly" wording to protect their rears) so Thiel couldn't sue. So instead of fighting back against Gawker directly, he used his money to help others sue Gawker with the goal of shutting them up.

The problem here isn't that Gawker is a journalistic saint, but that they are being bullied into submission because they committed the crime of Embarrassing A Rich Guy. As such Rich Guy will use his funds to keep them quiet. If this is allowed, how long until other news organizations - or even individual people - are sued into silence for reporting on things that Random Rich Guys find embarrassing?

Just like the ACLU & co.?

[Anonymous Coward]

> So if he decides he doesn't like you, he can sue the crap out of you on multiple fronts, without his own name getting dragged into it? You're fine with trying to fight off all those lawsuits, where you'll go bankrupt even if you win?

How is that any different from the ACLU and similar orgs? Lots of people fund them and they go around looking to sue anyone who is doing things they don't agree with. Just to remember, this wasn't a frivolous lawsuit against Gawker--they won.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Crashmarik]

Everyone hates Gawker so nobody here will defend them, even though this is fucking chilling for a free press.

Something something ethics in journalism.

If there were anything close to "Close To Ethics In Journalism" this could never have happened. Gawker is little more than a giant trolling operation.

Folks, you've been had.

[swan5566]

Is anyone else noticing how the headline has turned the conversation posts from what the actual news subject matter to what a provocative NY professor has said about the subject matter?