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

[WheezyJoe]

Press freedom is an essential element of any democracy. So pretty obviously the big issue with rich bastards using their wealth anonymously to try to shut down publications that criticise them is that it clearly works against that principle.

FTFY (never mind that commenter posted as AC)

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Gawker is the victim here. It's a filthy marxist propaganda paper that fuel racism and sexism.

Actually, they are all of those things. And you should defend their right to be those things, lest you end up on the receiving end of a similar, but less-well-founded complaint.

This is what people are talking about when they repeat that old phrase-turned-snowclone, "first they came for X, but I was not X, so I didn't speak out, then they came for Y, but I was not Y, so I didn't speak out, then they came for Z, and I'm Z, but there was no one left to speak out for me."

To put it more bluntly: First they came for Gawker The Marxist Propaganda Publisher, but I was not a marxist propaganda publisher, so I didn't speak out to defend their right to free speech. Where does it go next? I'm sure you can figure it out. If this situation is left unchecked, eventually you won't have any free speech either, and it will be indirectly your own damned fault.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] "first they came for X, but I was not X, so I didn't speak out, then they came for Y, but I was not Y, so I didn't speak out, then they came for Z, and I'm Z, but there was no one left to speak out for me."

I am white AND male. Gawker would never be speaking out for me anyway.

Gwaker media is not worth saving. Let the cancer die.

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

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, this relies on the Press being free enough to criticize the government, and be clever enough to realize when they government is lying to them and investigate to reveal the truth. Suing the media for lying isn't nearly the same level of problem, particularly when the media is 100% in the wrong as in the Hulk Hogan case.

Rhodesâ(TM)s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. âoeWe created an echo chamber,â he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. âoeThey were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.â

When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over Americaâ(TM)s future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. âoeIn the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,â he said. âoeWe had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.â He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. âoeWe drove them crazy,â he said of the dealâ(TM)s opponents.

The Presidency played the Press like a fiddle and they fell for it hook, line and sinker. They lied, lied, and lied some more and no reporter bothered to investigate. THAT is more destructive to democracy than a lawsuit against clear Press misconduct.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Fire_Wraith]

If you read through to some of the reporting on this, you'll find that it wasn't just the Hulk Hogan lawsuit - he's arranged for many more. What's more, the lawyers in the case were pursuing tactics that wouldn't make sense if they were actually trying to maximize the award to their client, but would absolutely make sense if they were simply trying to attack Gawker without care as to whether Hogan actually gets any money out of it.

So, in short, they're not trying to make Gawker pay for their crimes, they're trying to make Gawker go bankrupt any way they can. That's a huge distinction.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the correct response is: I know you are, but what am I?

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

[quantaman]

If you read through to some of the reporting on this, you'll find that it wasn't just the Hulk Hogan lawsuit - he's arranged for many more. What's more, the lawyers in the case were pursuing tactics that wouldn't make sense if they were actually trying to maximize the award to their client, but would absolutely make sense if they were simply trying to attack Gawker without care as to whether Hogan actually gets any money out of it.

So, in short, they're not trying to make Gawker pay for their crimes, they're trying to make Gawker go bankrupt any way they can. That's a huge distinction.

I haven't really seen that and I think what you're claiming would be a fairly serious allegation against the lawyers.

The lawyers are supposed to represent the interests of their client, Hulk Hogan, if they're jeopardizing those interests to further someone else's interests I think that's a conflict of interest.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[quantaman]

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.

There's also that awkward bit where justice is only available for the rich.

Gawker vs Thiel results in Gawker winning because Gawker is in the legal right.

Gawker vs Hogan results in Gawker winning because Hogan doesn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit.

Gawker vs Thiel+Hogan results in Gawker losing because Thiel has the resources and Hogan has the case.

I'm not sure arrangement #3 is wrong since it's the only way the little guy (Hogan) gets justice. But I think it should be public because Thiel's involvement deserves scrutiny.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[HideyoshiJP]

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't invalidate all the shitty things Gawker has done, nor does it mean "The Hulkster" did not have a valid case against them.

Re: The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[ArmoredDragon]

What gawker did in the Hogan case was completely wrong, and it doesn't matter who was backing action against them, even if it was Adolf Hitler. You likewise can't validate what they did just because you don't like the prosecution.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Rakarra]

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

Well for one, it flies in the face of Libertarian ideology that Thiel likes to promote, that government power used against private individuals and businesses is the root of much of the evil in our society. It seems like he's more of an Objectivist, where any means are acceptable as long as you're the one who comes ahead.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[T.E.D.]

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

The issue is that it wasn't necessarily the judgment, but all the legal fees that are bankrupting Gawker. If HH had lost, it wouldn't have ended because this guy could just go find another mercenary to hire to sue Gawker again for him. Its sort of like gambling where the house always wins in the long run, not because the odds are slightly in their favor, but because they have way more money than you. If you tick off a rich guy, he can just spend you into the ground with lawsuits. Basically, this guy has shown the whole country that he (and by extension all his other multi-billionaire buddies) has superpowers you and I don't have access to. The First Amendment is no protection if you cross him.

Future Gawkers won't behave better to people in general, they'll just give a free pass to billionaires.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[geoskd]

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.

This guy isn't creating fake lawsuits from nothing here, He simply enabled a person to mount a legal campaign against gawker, that the plaintiff would not have been able to mount without help. It should also be noted that Gawker is in no small part responsible for the plaintiffs financial state. Infidelity in a marriage doesn't necessarily always end in divorce, but when the spouse is exposed to the nearly incessant barrage of public scrutiny that Gawker created, it makes it almost impossible to save the marriage.

At the end of the day, all this billionaire did was restore balance to the legal system in this one case. In a perfect world, his involvement should have been neither necessary or consequential, but we don't live in a perfect world, we live in a country that is halfway between electing a narcissistic self entitled brat to the white house, or electing Trump.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[squiggleslash]

Is debunking someone's claim that they "invented" email not an example of press freedom too? Because Thiel is also bankrolling that libel suit against Gawker.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[MightyMartian]

Since Ayyadurai is making public claims, no, it's not the same, and if there is still a Gawker around to end up in court, Ayyadurai will almost certainly lose.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[squiggleslash]

In the Hulk Hogan case, yes, he's enabled the lawsuit, but he's actually ensured the lawsuit is aimed at bankrupting Gawker rather than maximizing damages for Hogan - for example, withdrawing motions that would have ensured Gawker's insurers paid out. So while technically he's enabled a lawsuit to go ahead that might have been justified, he's ensured that neither party will see "justice" in any reasonable sense of the term.

In the Shiva "I invented email" Ayyadurai case, pretty much anyone can see that the case is a fake lawsuit created from nothing. Ayyadurai didn't invent electronic mail, and it's not libel to point that out. Thiel is enabling a groundless lawsuit to take place. That's not right.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[dreamchaser]

They had zero right to post what they did then to ignore a court order to take it down. This is not a good test case for freedom of the press. Gawker was in the wrong and got bitch slapped for it. It has nothing to do with liking them or not. They crossed the line. Freedom of speech is not absolute (citation: SCOTUS rulings over the years). They were wrong then when ordered to take the video down they thumbed their nose at the court.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[fizzup]

The New York Times has reported that

Questions about the independence of Mr. Bollea [aka Hulk Hogan], who never mentioned a third-party backer, first emerged when his lawyer removed a claim from his complaint that had the effect of eliminating Gawker’s insurance company from the case. That struck many legal observers as odd, given that most lawyers seeking large payouts want to include claims that are insured against because doing so increases the chances of a settlement.

The thinking goes that if the insurance company is not named in the suit then Gawker would have had to pay more, but the plaintiff would have won a lower settlement or would have risked losing the possibility of an out-of-court settlement. It is possible, though, that both Hulk Hogan and Paul Thiel agreed that the best outcome was the one that made Gawker pay the most, or that they were embarrassed as much as possible by a public airing. In that case, the lawyer acted in the interest of their client.

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.

You live in a world of ideals which isn't the real world. While Freedom of the Press is important, it doesn't give the press the right to publish distortions of the truth, they should publish the facts. It puts the responsibility on the press to report newsworthy items in a factual way; Gawker consistently fails to live up to this responsibility.

I have no problem with defending the press when it's attempting to get to a story and follows good journalistic standards and ethics; Gawker is not known for any of that. Any site that mashed up Google Maps with real time sightings of celebrities in a vertical called "Gawker Stalker", or who publishes videos that have been obtained illegally, or supports hacking of an email account which is a federal crime is arrogantly loose with journalistic integrity yet claims Freedom of the Press when it suits their interests.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[XxtraLarGe]

Thiel, a self-identified libertarian (and, it turns out, a California delegate for Donald Trump)

Well for one, it flies in the face of Libertarian ideology that Thiel likes to promote, that government power used against private individuals and businesses is the root of much of the evil in our society.

There isn't anything un-libertarian about suing someone for libel/slander/defamation. You'd find that most libertarians think that courts, military, prisons, etc. are legitimate roles for government. Basically government should defend peoples' lives & property from harm from others, but otherwise leave them alone. So that covers things like battery, murder, rape, theft, fraud.

On a side note, when I saw that he's a Trump supporter, I imagined Terry Jones saying a la his Life of Brian female voice "Libertarian? He's no libertarian. He's a very naught boy!"

Re: The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[jmcvetta]

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

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Triklyn]

the budget was balanced in spite of clinton, not because of him. one note.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[tbannist]

There isn't anything un-libertarian about suing someone for libel/slander/defamation.

Except, it wasn't libel, slander or defamation. It was a tape of Hogan having an extra-marital affair, and as long as the tape is real, it can't be libel, slander or defamation because those require that the allegation be untrue. Furthermore, as far as I understand it, most Libertarians don't support a right to privacy, especially when it can be used to trump free speech rights.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Virtucon]

The issue is that it wasn't necessarily the judgment, but all the legal fees that are bankrupting Gawker.

Who cares? Gawker is like huff'npuff post; useless media conduits. TMZ should be shaking in their boots about now.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you consider Gawker to be journalism disgusts me.

#gamergate

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[sumdumass]

This is only possible because someone had a claim. A claim that has survived court challenges too i might add. I think that should matter a hell of a lot more than who funds someone in their fight to become whole again.

Let's try looking at this from a different angle. What if there was a bank robbery and when the robber started shooting people, a skinhead takes the gun from the robber and in the process the robber gets shot. Do we ignore all that lead up to the robber getting shot and support frying the racist skinhead in the electric chair because we don't like racists? Or do we hold our noses and say thank you for saving lives?

Regardless of the motivation or who funds it, there was a valid claim and the person bringing it deserved to make the case.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Fire_Wraith]

Many libertarians are very concerned about privacy, especially in the digital rights category. Whether or not they agree with the government being the ones to enforce a right to privacy is another question, though.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[AbRASiON]

Nah fuck Gawker media, they are pushing a bullshit agenda. Play it fair or don't play

http://i.imgur.com/CQ5qgvu.jpg

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[tnk1]

Well, I don't think it is so much that he admitted that the media is an arm of the liberals so much as the media can be played like a fiddle by anyone with enough skill and resources.

The media's problem is that it is like those sharks that can't stop swimming and eating or they die. They need access and people to give them scoops because they will lose readership if they have nothing substantial to report. Every. Single. Day. That gives the government a lot of power over them. All that is needed is someone media savvy in government to use that against them.

Think about all the "slow news day" complaints you hear about certain soft or human interest stories. If that's on a front page, the media outlet is literally starving for something to put up. Too many days like that and they're toast. Or rather, the editor who pissed off the government is toast and the media outlet simply ditches them and hires a new one who plays ball. The media can only go just so far in the balance between reporting the news, and pissing off their sources.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[tnk1]

Yes, you can argue that if Hogan really wanted to punish Gawker for an intrusion into his personal life, it is very likely that he would pick the tactic that would hurt *Gawker* the most. Hogan has no beef with their insurance company.

A big payout doesn't hurt as much when your target isn't even paying most of it.

Now, many people might just want a payout because they know that there's nothing that revenge will do and they want to make bank off it. I'd think Hulk Hogan would be one of a group of people who could probably forgo the payout to retaliate more directly.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[tnk1]

Except Gawker and the like don't give a shit about "normal people" anyway. Billionaires and celebs are who they get their content on. Is Gawker going to run a story on the average Slashdot reader's sex life? Even though I am certain there are a few freaks on this board, nobody outside a small local group gives a shit if a normal person passes around their spouse or significant other or has random kinks. In fact, I generally prefer to not know.

So yeah, the future Gawkers could find themselves tamed a bit if the billionaires and celebs fight back. That's their primary prey. I doubt it will end that brand of "journalism", but it might change it a bit.

Re: The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[sumdumass]

Meanwhile, back in real America, if you are in the right real people will sue for you.

Most lawyers will take a clear cut case on contingency. That means they pay until you win, deduct expenses, then grab a percentage of the judgment. There are also lawyers who will do work pro bono which means they flip the bill and don't expect compensation but for some reason feel the case is necessary. You also have lots of charities that enable both as well as some that will just pay the lawyer bill. So it certainly is not limited to what you can afford.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[sumdumass]

You make it sound like Gawker was completely innocent and eventually won everything they were sued over. If a lawsuit doesn't have merit, it will be tossed out. There not only needs to be a reason why you are sued, that reason needs to be supported by some basis of law.

If you really are worried about some guy with a lot of money supporting other people lawsuits, don't give a valid reason to be sued.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[UsuallyReasonable]

Whatever dude. Somehow I'm completely missing how that justifies Gawker publishing a sextape of Hulk Hogan.

Re: The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[jmcvetta]

Hahahaha - good one!

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[rahvin112]

I'm curious how they were in the wrong reporting the Hogan infidelity? He did what they claimed, they had a recording of it that was provided to them and Hogan is a public figure. I suspect that if they are willing to appeal they would win because Hogan IS a public figure and to sue them he'd have to show "actual malice" and not simply trying to get clicks. Actual malice is nearly impossible to prove.

Don't assume because Hogan won in a lower court that the judgement he received is valid. Only once all the appeals are finished can you make that claim. I personally don't like Gawker but I don't think they did anything wrong when they reported on the Hogan infidelity.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[rahvin112]

Free speech doesn't require a public "good". The standard for public figures, something Hogan arguably is, is "actual malice". It doesn't even need to be true. Actual malice is nearly impossible to prove (requires that you prove the person intended to harm, which requires knowledge of their state of mind), it's why public figures can almost never win lawsuits (they might win in a lower court but the case is usually tossed in an appeal) against the press.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[rahvin112]

The lawyers client is the one paying them. It's why you don't let lawyers you aren't paying represent you, because they have no obligation to serve your interests.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[onepoint]

Press freedom, it's got a ton load.
Now the opportunity to dismantle someone whom you would enjoy seeing destroyed presented itself.
He jumped on it.
Nothing wrong and like another poster mentioned,
"Attack the enemy where they are not" - Art of War.

this is a well-crafted business move, small funding ( 2 million )
get's rid of your biggest thorn. perfect.

don't forget, the courts have ruled recently that gawker crossed the line.
so 2 million bet, outcome 140 million, settles out to gawker out of business and all assets gone. Not to shabby.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[onepoint]

I bet you they got a research room full with these guy hoping to out http://pophitz.com/17-gay-acto...

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[geoskd]

for example, withdrawing motions that would have ensured Gawker's insurers paid out.

That is exactly the point of the lawsuit. Financial damages are only part of it. Hogan filed for( and the jury awarded ( and the judge approved ) ) of an additional award of punitive damages precisely because they are trying to stop gawker from behaving the way they have. The jury awarded the punitive damages because Gawker is behaving like a first class ass, and what they have been doing is illegal. The judge approved the award because it is likely the only way to get Gawkers attention, and maybe serve as a warning to others that think the 1st amendment gives them the right to say and do anything they want without consequences. The first amendment guarantees Gawker that the government will take no direct action to stop them. It does not absolve them of liability for their actions. The move to prevent insurance from being partly liable for the award was done specifically because Hogan and his backers are not in it to get the money (although that is probably a small component ), but really just want to make sure Gawker stops doing what it is doing. All available evidence suggests that Gawker will not stop until they are no longer a going concern, and the judge and jury seem quite content to help Gawker reach the logical end of that road.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[geoskd]

In the Shiva "I invented email" Ayyadurai case, pretty much anyone can see that the case is a fake lawsuit created from nothing. Ayyadurai didn't invent electronic mail, and it's not libel to point that out. Thiel is enabling a groundless lawsuit to take place. That's not right.

I agree, completely, and given the circumstances around that case, it will almost certainly be dismissed. I would not be surprised (nor unhappy) to also see a counter suit for frivolous lawsuit, but in that case, the tables would be 100% turned against Gawker as the person bringing the suit would have almost no assets to seize to pay the award, so Gawker would have no upside to going after Ayyadurai. It is exactly the kind of lose lose situation Gawker puts its victims in, and I absolutely love to see our twisted legal system contorted back onto itself like this.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[ooloorie]

Press freedom is an essential element of any democracy.

No, it's not. Free speech is an essential element of any democracy; "the press" has neither special rights, nor special privileges, nor special functions. Historically, people have chosen to outsource some aspects of speech to a "press" profession, but that was simply due to technological limitations.

And Gawker isn't even "press", it's a gossip blog. That means that they don't even play by the rules that supposedly distinguish the press from regular free speech.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[ooloorie]

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

No, it shouldn't. Gawker isn't barraged by numerous frivolous lawsuits all financed by one rich guy; they have faced a major lawsuit and have lost.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[ooloorie]

What's more, the lawyers in the case were pursuing tactics that wouldn't make sense if they were actually trying to maximize the award to their client, but would absolutely make sense if they were simply trying to attack Gawker without care as to whether Hogan actually gets any money out of it.

That's a nice fiction, but in reality, the award against Gawker is $140 million, more than Hogan originally asked for. So your idea that his lawyers weren't maximizing the award seems pretty ludicrous. Furthermore, judges have little tolerance for lawyers that play legal games in order to harass people; lawyers can find themselves in big trouble for that.

In different words, your allegations are unreasonable and seem fabricated.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[T.E.D.]

So yeah, the future Gawkers could find themselves tamed a bit if the billionaires and celebs fight back.

Most "celebs" aren't billionaires, so their coverage won't be affected in the slightest. In fact, the only one I know of who is one is Oprah. (eg: Jay-Z and Beyoncé combined only get about 3/4th of the way there) There aren't that many billionaires (about 540 in the USA according to Forbes). Most of them are either people who struck gold in tech, are money managers, or people who inherited wealth. Those are the one and the only class of people who tabloids now have to fear.

So again, I say:

Future Gawkers won't behave better to people in general, they'll just give a free pass to billionaires.

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Coren22]

What does that have to do with illegally publishing a sex tape without permission of both partys?

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Freedom of press is absolutely important. However, Gawker really did screw up when they posted revenge porn of Hulk Hogan, and while I think the damages he's getting are a little excessive, it's ultimately Gawker's fault. Thiel helped fund the lawsuit, which had merit, for his own ends. There's no real reason he shouldn't have been able to help Hogan out; Hogan had a legitimate complaint.

critic?

[edittard]

Since when was critic a verb?

Re:critic?

[OzPeter]

Did TFS change after you wrote? I don't see critic used as a verb.

Yep TFS has changed.

[kneels on ground and raises fists to the sky and yells]

Damn you new /. and your fancy editors who are responsive.

 

Re:critic?

[Hognoxious]

I saw it too. Presumably it should have been "critiques" or "criticises".

Surprised that the editor was able to work that out, actually.

I'm not sure this is illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he wants to secretly fund the lawsuit, what's the big deal? It's his money.

Re:I'm not sure this is illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I'm not sure this is illegal.

[Iamthecheese]

Maybe not but Gawker is a giant pile of shit that needs to be shoveled into a sewer pronto. Peter Thiel is my new hero.

Re:I'm not sure this is illegal.

[Crashmarik]

I don't like Thiel
but I dislike him less after reading this story.

Not Libertarian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely, *hiring* lawyers to produce a desired result is a market-based solution.

Re:Not Libertarian?

[GLMDesigns]

Keep creating straw men (and believing in your creations). That's the way to truly understand events and motivations.

Re:Not Libertarian?

[GLMDesigns]

Libertarians are not anarchists. Courts are part of the desired any libertarian society. Would you consider George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to be anarchists?

Re:Not Libertarian?

[Killall -9 Bash]

They belived that government is by it's nature inherently evil, and must be limited to the greatest degree possible..... so they pretty much were anarchists.

Re:Not Libertarian?

[GLMDesigns]

That does not make one an anarchist. The US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Federalist Papers are not anarchist documents.

The best word for would be Classical Liberal as the the term liberal has morphed into progressivism one of many collectivist sects.

Re:Not Libertarian?

[MightyMartian]

The state is obliged to set up a court system and put a set of rules in place for the courts to work. Courts are not a Thunderdome, where two men enter and one man leaves. So even disputes between two people, where they cannot resolve the dispute outside of court, will necessarily become the concern of the State, since at least one of those people in the dispute has decided the State must become an actor.

For chrissakes, adjudication is probably one of the oldest roles of governance.

Re:Not Libertarian?

[MightyMartian]

I think that misunderstands what anarchists are. I'd argue that they weren't even Libertarians, and certainly their actions when they became heads of government were not the actions of people who believed the state had virtually no role at all. Quite the opposite, particularly for Madison and Jefferson.

Beyond that, I question the notion that any of them viewed the state as an evil. They certainly viewed the State as capable of evil, but then again, the way the Constitution divvied up powers was largely because they viewed everyone, including the voter, as being capable of evil. That's why the President is selected by an Electoral College, rather than by direct general plebiscite, and why, prior to the 17th Amendment, the only branch of the Federal government that was chosen by direct vote was the House of Representatives.

It is true that Jefferson's ideal state was based, not surprisingly, on a sort of agrarian Libertarianism, and that does have some elements in common with some variants of Anarchism, but that hardly means they were Anarchists, nor does it mean, in my view, that they were Libertarians in the way modern Libertarians would think. Beyond that, the entire point of the US Constitution was because the Articles of Confederation were to weak and left too much undefined, and thus threatened the stability and unity of the United States, and the intention all along was to amend that problem by creating a constitution that created a stronger and more stable Federal government.

Re:Not Libertarian?

[MightyMartian]

Exactly! I think "capriciously" is the operative word here. The entire point of the Revolution was not that the British government didn't have the right to collect taxes (which seems to be the view of the more extreme Libertarians who keep talking about taxation as "theft"), but rather that the British Parliament had no moral right to impose taxes without giving representation to those who were being taxed. The crux of the matter was the British government's refusal to recognize the colonial assemblies as being fully legitimate lawmaking institutions (Britain's view was, in fact, until the Statute of Westminster, that Parliament remained the ultimate legislative authority throughout the British Empire, including its Dominions).

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

[jbmartin6]

I had the same thought. Mr Rosen doesn't seem to understand what makes a Libertarian, none (or practically none) would say that any business should be immune from torts.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Came to post this.

It's like the most libertarian thing you can do.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Infiniti2000]

Exactly. This is libertarianism in its purest form, but using your privately gained power/money to do whatever the fuck you want within the law. Even better, don't let the fucking government legislators create laws that stifle your private tyranny.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[penguinoid]

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

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[fermion]

Not libertarian would be having congress pass a law that made something generally accepted as not a crime to become a crime specifically to vanquish your enemy. This case has to do with private property rights, which libertarians mostly prize. Hulk Hogan is a brand that is property of those who invest in the performer. Gawker arguably diminished that property. Some libertarians acknowledge that the governement can have a role in helping to solve such disputes, because it is cleaner to solve such disputes in the courts.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[PopeRatzo]

Libel laws are the opposite of libertarian.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[SvnLyrBrto]

I'm just disappointed that it took place in secret. I would have happily kicked in a few bucks to a kickstarter or gofundme for the endavour; especially if there were a tier where I could have gotten an "I helped put gawker out of business." t-shirt. (I'm picturing a nice caricature drawing of Jason Chen and Brian Lam getting steel-toed boots to the face and/or posterior here...)

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory it's anti-libertarian. In that it uses a state arm and a lawsuit that does not involve contract law. It's also quite anti free speech, which is a big part of libertarianism.

In practice it's about as libertarian as it gets. Because in practice all libertarians, without exception, only adhere to the above if it's self serving.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Firethorn]

Lovely....

How about this: You try to not ascribe my philosophy as deliberate evil, and I won't do the same to yours?
This comes under two main libertarian points:
1. Informed consumer. You're not supposed to lie.
2. Your right to throw your fist stops at my nose.

As long as what you're doing doesn't hurt others, do as you will. That being said, privacy is a right, and Gawker went too bloody far with Hogan.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Firethorn]

Libel laws are the opposite of libertarian.

No they aren't, at least when you're publishing non-true stuff. Honestly enough, I also value the right of privacy such that publishing a sex tape where multiple felonies were committed to gain it covertly, is also a violation amounting to a certain level of violence.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[mjm1231]

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.

Funding a lawsuit to stop a wrong from being done is nothing at all the same as funding a lawsuit with the intent of stopping unrelated behavior that you just happen to not like.

I thought that, in theory, libertarians believed in liberty. Or is that only for themselves, and it's ok to suppress everyone else's? I mean, if he were openly funding the lawsuits, you might have half a libertarian leg to stand on.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[mjm1231]

I wish I knew if this was intended as irony or a libertarian admitting that they are in favor of tyranny.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[PopeRatzo]

No they aren't, at least when you're publishing non-true stuff.

It takes a big government with guns to enforce libel laws, so yes. They are the opposite of libertarian.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[CrashNBrn]

So what was "wrong" with telling the world what a racist, immoral piece of shit that Hulk Hogan is?
And boo hoo, he can't pretend to be a wrestler anymore as he's not much of a role model now is he?

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Firethorn]

Indeed. Courts are the Libertarian answer to just about everything, rather than regulations. An awful lot of slashdotters get us mixed up with anarchists.

That being said, as a moderate libertarian I'm for keeping some regulations around.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Firethorn]

I wish I knew if this was intended as irony or a libertarian admitting that they are in favor of tyranny.

Neither, I'd rate it as a fairly standard strawman attack on the philosophy.

Though 'doing whatever the fuck you want within the law' is libertarian so long as the law is well written.

My cliffs note version: "So long as everybody involved are informed consenting competent adults, do what you will"

For that matter, even if it is within the law, if you go harming somebody who's not consenting or not competent(such as being underage), expect to be hauled into court to pay damages.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Firethorn]

Funding a lawsuit to stop a wrong from being done is nothing at all the same as funding a lawsuit with the intent of stopping unrelated behavior that you just happen to not like.

I may not have phrased it quite the way I should have. Funding 'valid' lawsuits is all well and good. Valid, in this case, means a case put forth in good faith that a wrong or tort offense has been committed. I apologize for giving you that impression

Frivolously suing people, or funding frivolous lawsuits, is something that needs to die in a fire. SLAPP* lawsuits, deliberately trying to run people out of money, time, or just dedication, and all that needs to be stopped.

Still, given my supporting sentence, isn't taking the idea that SLAPP lawsuits are libertarian a little on the distorted side? And what does publicly funding the lawsuit have to do with being libertarian or not? Does my name need to be announced to the public as supporting a court case whenever one of the non-profits I donate to decides to help with somebody's defense?

*Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Firethorn]

So what was "wrong" with telling the world what a racist [nypost.com], immoral [dailymail.co.uk] piece of shit that Hulk Hogan is?

Nothing. Of course, that wasn't what the lawsuit was about, now was it?

Even the second lawsuit probably has to do with violations of court orders and agreements about anything to do with the sex tape, which is again a valid use of the courts.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[rahvin112]

Libertarianism, like any other political term means whatever the speaker wants it to mean and whatever the listener wants it to mean. In other words its an absolutely inadequate method to describe any policy position because it can literally mean anything.

Just like any other political "position" it means absolutely nothing because English doesn't have a government agency that arbitrates the meanings of words like French.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[david_thornley]

The problem I have with libertarian philosophy is that it doesn't look to me like it would work well with humans under modern conditions, much like Marxism or assuming most users have a clue about computer security. The impression I get reading some of the more extreme Libertarian literature is that the writers can't imagine the perfidy of some humans. This may make them great human beings and wonderful to do business with, but it's not a basis for government. The impression I got from reading a Libertarian platform is that the writers didn't have a clue as to how to make things like pollution controls work, so they put down something ideologically pure and kept going.

Robinson, in his $COLOR Mars series, had a character describe libertarianism as people wanting police protection from their slaves. Pretty much no actual libertarian wants that, but it's obvious how libertarianism could wind up like that, given certain economic and social conditions.

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Firethorn]

The impression I get reading some of the more extreme Libertarian literature is that the writers can't imagine the perfidy of some humans.

You would be correct with that, which is why I'm a moderate libertarian. There needs to be functions in society to hopefully stop people before they dig themselves a hole so deep that they can never dig themselves out. Things like murder, extreme pollution, etc...

The problem I have with libertarian philosophy is that it doesn't look to me like it would work well with humans under modern conditions, much like Marxism or assuming most users have a clue about computer security.

To be fair, most philosophies have this problem if you keep them 'pure'. Fortunately, I'm a moderate.

The impression I got from reading a Libertarian platform is that the writers didn't have a clue as to how to make things like pollution controls work, so they put down something ideologically pure and kept going.

Pollution is indeed a complicated topic. Keep in mind that I'm working from memory, simplifying, and as a moderate trying for a system that I think would, more or less, work.

Preconceptions:
1. We last the ability to have a technological society without pollution. Hell, we lack the ability to have society at all without pollution. Even stone age humans had pollution.
2. It is impractical to the point of impossibility to track every injury from pollution to a specific source.
3. Our quality of life will be maximized by the proper balancing of economic yet polluting production, pollution controls, and curbing of polluting production.

Ergo, for any given economic activity that produces pollution - internalize the external costs by charging them. Proceeds go towards providing universal medical care or something. Basically, create a list of how much they're emitting into whatever forms, and consult a table that's our best guess at how much damage, say, airborne mercury, causes. Multiply by something like 1.2-2.0 to account for pollution usually ending up being worse than we first thought, and to handle the administrative costs.

They put controls in to reduce their pollution, great, lower fees. If they can't curb their pollution via technological means and can't operate economically under the fees, well, that's a sign that they shouldn't be operating, right? It means that they're a net negative profit maker when you include external costs.

For things like individuals, I'd build the fees into the supply lines - a more polluting vehicle will have to pay a larger estimated pollution fee than a less polluting vehicle. Gasoline will have a tax on it to cover the pollution, etc...

Re:Sure it's libertarian

[Infiniti2000]

"Within the law" should include civil penalties and not just criminal. So, I dismiss your counter-strawman. :-) A well-written law is a red-herring. You may say that Libertarians are well-meaning and that they do not skirt laws or use them to their advantage, but that's not true. Nothing about being libertarian means that they're righteous. If they can screw others over within the law (criminal or civil), then they will because it's up to each individual to protect themselves and their families.

Verbing Weirds Language

[OzPeter]

Since when was critic a verb?

Every since Calvin made verbing popular!

Calvin and Hobbes

What is the fun of fuck you money

[hsmith]

If you can't fuck over people that pissed you off

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[shaitand]

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

There is no such thing as first amendment protections from private citizens. You are free to speak against the government not private citizens.

You are right though, Gawker has made their own bed and not many are inclined to defend them.

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:Anti-libertarian Bias

[Captain Splendid]

Exactly. He's gone to the government courts for his warfare instead of using the free market. Judges and juries have nothing to do with his excoriation.

Re:Anti-libertarian Bias

[serviscope_minor]

He used government power to silence someone he disliked.

Re:Anti-libertarian Bias

[goose-incarnated]

He used government power to silence someone he disliked.

Seems perfectly fair. They posted a sex tape of him doing him material damage. They now have to pay restitution. That the victim got monetary help in presenting his case is irrelevant.

Re:Anti-libertarian Bias

[serviscope_minor]

No they did not post a sex tape of Peter Thiel. He piggybacked on someone else's lawsuit because he wanted to use the power of the government to silence someone he disliked.

Re:Anti-libertarian Bias

[goose-incarnated]

No they did not post a sex tape of Peter Thiel.

No one ever claimed that they did. The claim is "They did material damage to an individual". Peter Thiel funded this individual's claim for restitution. Once again, there is nothing wrong with helping an injured party claim restitution.

He piggybacked on someone else's lawsuit because he wanted to use the power of the government to silence someone he disliked.

Call The Morality Police!!! Someone is donating to a cause I don't agree with!!!

Re:Anti-libertarian Bias

[serviscope_minor]

Oh it's you.

Your name is accurate, you do have the intellect of a goose. Sadly, you're somewhat worse company than actual geese.

Re:Rich people fucking over everyone else

[shaitand]

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

Going to the defendant for trial news

[Anonymous Coward]

If this news is covered by unbiased sources, link one of them.

If it isn't covered by unbiased sources, then it isn't news, it's just the next round of character assassination.

C'mon slashdot.

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:WTF Slashdot

[HornWumpus]

Since forever?

Re:WTF Slashdot

[Frosty Piss]

First strike: Anonymous Coward comment.
Second strike: "You must be new here".
Third Strike: Slashdot is not and has never been sold as an unbiased news source.

YOU'RE OUT.

Re:WTF Slashdot

[mvdwege]

No, it's perfectly in line with libertarianism as it is actually practised: naked authoritarian abuse of power by the rich and bootlicking toadies praising it as high principle.

Re:WTF Slashdot

[mvdwege]

As I said: bootlicking toadies.

Trying to kill a publication is very libertarian

[JoeyRox]

Free speech works both ways.

Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Back in the latter part of the 1990s I worked with a guy who was Libertarian and very vocal about it. So I asked him to explain exactly what Libertarianism was and what his beliefs were. Two things in particular came out of that conversation. One was that I realized that while a lot of what he supported sounded really good on the surface, the whole philosophy seemed like a house of cards to me where one bad actor could make out like a bandit after basically gaming the system to take advantage of it since Libertarianism working relies on people "doing the right thing" and it all collapses when one guy doesn't. The other thing I took out of it was that I asked him since the government under his Libertarian ideals was incredibly weak and small, what did you do when you had problems, like for example, some manufacturer sells you bad medicine? Simple - you sue. So instead of the government being your big stick the legal system is. So yes, I think it's very much in keeping with Libertarian principles to simply sue people you don't agree with.

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?

Re:Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue

[Jason Levine]

The other thing I took out of it was that I asked him since the government under his Libertarian ideals was incredibly weak and small, what did you do when you had problems, like for example, some manufacturer sells you bad medicine? Simple - you sue. So instead of the government being your big stick the legal system is. So yes, I think it's very much in keeping with Libertarian principles to simply sue people you don't agree with.

This is where I diverge from pure-Libertarianism. It's a good idea in theory (sue the drug company for selling bad medicine), but in practice the drug company has a ton of lawyers waiting to either shut down any suit or drag it on until you go bankrupt. In cases like this, you NEED a Federal government strong enough to tell the big company "what you're doing is wrong and if you don't stop here are the penalties." The tricky part is making the government strong enough to protect its citizens/keep big companies in check, but no so strong that they start tying the companies up in useless regulation. (Government officials tend to like creating more regulations since it gives them more power.)

Re:Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue

[DarkOx]

I think dispute resolution belongs with judges and juries not with politicization but whether its a question of enforcing the courts will or the stats will the correct answer is militia. The state or court can hire an army or regular citizens when required to enforce an action.

This serves as a final check on the power of states or a judge who might try to legislate from the bench. Citizens will not sign up in numbers or be willing to contribute funds for a militia if they don't support the cause. In the general case of just cause people will sign up because they should recognize that their failure to contribute now means there may not be anyone to enforce a judgement for them should they need it some time.

Re:Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue

[Firethorn]

The other thing I took out of it was that I asked him since the government under his Libertarian ideals was incredibly weak and small, what did you do when you had problems, like for example, some manufacturer sells you bad medicine? Simple - you sue. So instead of the government being your big stick the legal system is. So yes, I think it's very much in keeping with Libertarian principles to simply sue people you don't agree with.

Okay, first up, I'm not a fundie big-L Libertarian, but a more pragmatic little-l one. Still, I might have a couple corrections for you.
One - Weak and small government - I'm for a limited, not a weak, government. I see a 'weak' government as one that can't enforce it's mandates. In this sense, China has a weak government in the area of pollution because, despite the best, strongest, laws in the world* for environmental protection, they are unable or unwilling to enforce said mandates. On the other hand, a limited government is one that is only to practice it's power within narrowly defined guidelines. The constitution was supposed to produce a limited government. However, as long as it's within those guidelines it should be as strong as necessary. If it is determined that you need to be arrested for crimes, you should be getting arrested.

Second, you shouldn't be suing people simply for disagreeing with you. You should fund your own advertising campaign for that. It's when people have wronged you, harmed you, in some way that you should sue. Developed bronchitis because the local coal power plant doesn't want to install environmental controls? Lawsuit. Local news agency mislead you by lying? Lawsuit. Local store sold you e coli tainted peanut butter? Lawsuit. Etc...

And yes, that means that the courts need the power to enforce their findings, and that at least theoretically they really need to be better operating. As a small-l, I'm willing to accept a certain amount of legislation intended to keep people from needing to go to court in the first place. Pollution, for example.

*Seriously, they have the best environmental laws on the books.

Re:Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue

[SuiteSisterMary]

If this were the case, Brown V Board of Education would have ended with, what, a Judge saying 'Let the kids go to school' and the local militia refusing to enforce it?

Re:Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue

[DarkOx]

No because in a libertarian society public schools are not a thing.

Re:Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue

[SuiteSisterMary]

So libertarianism actively promotes segregation and stratification? Private institutions have an absolute right to deny attendance or membership arbitrarily, or a de facto right if they happen to be in sync with current societal mores?

Re:Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue

[DarkOx]

Yes, absolutely

Nobody owes you or kids an education. If you want to educated them or be educate go do it. Which you ought to be able to afford to do since you won't be paying taxes to educate anyone else;s kids.

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.

What's the story here?

[wwalker]

They dug up dirt on him, he dug up dirt on them. Seems fair. I can see it being a problem if he hired thugs to rough up a few journalists to silence them. On the other hand, bringing up valid lawsuits in a legitimate court of law, at least one of which 12 independent jurors confirmed to be valid, that's fair game. Free press (or freedom of speech for that matter) doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any repercussions whatsoever. I guess some bloggers have to learn it the hard way.

Re:What's the story here?

[halivar]

By "dug up dirt" you mean they publicly outed him as gay when he was not ready, which was none of their, or our, fucking business (no pun intended). If I had the power and money, I would have done the same thing in his position. Fuck Gawker; they reaped what they sowed. As far as I'm concerned, it's poetic justice.

Re:What's the story here?

[Ryanrule]

dick bag was a gay guy funding anti-gay legislation. if he kept his wallet out of politics, they wouldnt have bothered with him. HE put himself out there. HE did.

Re:What's the story here?

[halivar]

When you put it like that, I guess we can think of Gawker as like a secret police for liberals. Don't have an opinion on anything, or we'll have to put a national fucking panopticon in your bedroom. On top of that, making this even worse, you're wrong. Peter Thiel donates mostly to Libertarian and pro-marijuana groups, with the occasional Republican presidential campaign contribution. There is no record of him donating to campaigns for anti-gay legislation, only donating to pro-gay ones. So, yeah, sweet friendly fire there.

Next Time: On Silicon Valley

[Jonah Hex]

Seriously, this sounds a lot like the convoluted "Curb Your Enthusiasm" style situations featured in the show.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[The Grim Reefer]

ethics in journalism.

Unfortunately ethics and journalism are two words that almost have no place in today's world. And to put the two together, you might as well say you saw a Bandersnatch riding on a unicorn along side a yeti with an imp on it's shoulder, on their way from El Dorado to Shangri-La via the Yellow Brick road.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[PopeRatzo]

What gawker does isn't journalism, it's vandalism.

It's the way of the world now

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/J...

Win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

Gawker comes under financial pressure and might even have to close, and a LOLbertarian burns through a bunch of money. There's literally nothing to not like about this.

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?

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[The Grim Reefer]

OK, so here I am on the Yellow Brick road - heading to Shangra-La, when I come across Gawker. What do I do, kill it with the Vorpal Sword?

Don't be silly. You nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Someone explain the Gawker mentality to me

[DNS-and-BIND]

Years ago, I started reading deadspin.com because it seemed cool, it had all this behind-the-scenes information about sports, it was a good way to avoid work for a few minutes. But I soon became aware there was a real nasty streak in the website. They didn't just report things that happened, they went out of their way to hurt people and say vicious things. Even when it wasn't warranted...sometimes it was warranted because some sports figures are real human trash. But every day there was this nasty, hurtful personality of the site, just ready to put the hooks into anyone who got in their way. I eventually had to stop reading because I was afraid this kind of thing was going to rub off on me. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you, that sort of thing.

In the years since, I have come to know that pretty much every website Gawker has is the same way. They are petty, cutting, severely biased, and often wrong. It's their bias and hurtful nature that leads them to make so many factual mistakes, they are so ready to unload on anyone. Even good people who mean well...especially good people who mean well, they get the extra treatment.

Can someone explain the mentality of the people who work for these websites? I just don't get it. How can journalists heartily enjoy such blackhearted behavior? Hulk Hogan is no hero but what they did to him was clearly wrong and clearly deserved a vicious legal smackdown. What turns these journalists into such lowlife scum, even more than the typical journalist?

Re:Someone explain the Gawker mentality to me

[Fire_Wraith]

From what I've seen and heard, the general operating tone of Gawker and its sub-sites is snark. It varies a lot between some of the writers and editors, as well as some of the sites themselves (some are far more interesting/tolerable/what have you than others), and many of the writers I liked that used to work there have moved on to better things.

Some of it may have more to do with the subject matter, though. Things like politics, entertainment, and sports play a lot more into the personalities involved, whereas I tend to notice less of it on, say, jalopnik (which focuses on cars/etc).

Re:Someone explain the Gawker mentality to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain the mentality of the people who work for these websites? I just don't get it. How can journalists heartily enjoy such blackhearted behavior? Hulk Hogan is no hero but what they did to him was clearly wrong and clearly deserved a vicious legal smackdown. What turns these journalists into such lowlife scum, even more than the typical journalist?

Utterly ruthless prioritization of clicks. Unlike newspaper, TV, and other media, you can directly measure how much money each individual article pulls in. More than any other site, Gawker has used this information to amorally tune its content for maximum revenue, going beyond clickbait headlines into trainwreck territory: being so awful and nasty that people can't look away.

Ironically, I've heard claims that they've taken it so far it has hurt revenue. Their reputation is so bad that advertisers are reluctant to do business with them, which reduces demand for advertising space on their sites and pushes down what they can charge for it.

Re:Someone explain the Gawker mentality to me

[Zibodiz]

This. Each Gawker blog is independently run, with (as I understand it) fairly little corporate oversight. The tone of the blog will depend entirely on the managing editor. Because of that, Jalopnik (and most of its sub-blogs, such as Black Flag, Lanesplitter, etc) has a very friendly and upbeat atmosphere, and are actively anti-clickbait. Jezebel, Deadspin, etc are more like tabloids; the managing editors think that controversy is what drives clicks, so that's what they focus on. Gizmodo is a fairly decent tech block now, but Sploid (one of Giz's sub-blogs) is utter trash written as if by a wide-eyed 8 year old, who thinks everything is 'magic' and 'mind blowing'. Not too long ago, Gizmodo used to have more articles about marijuana than technology; Why? Because the managing editor appeared to be a pot head*.
The Gawker network employs a lot of bad editors. Even the good blogs have some poor management (constantly firing good, talented writers without explanation), but that's the root problem.

*Purely speculative, based on the fact that the marijuana articles ended when they got a new managing editor. Perhaps the old editor wasn't pro marijuana, but he had a bad way of showing it, if so.

Re:Someone explain the Gawker mentality to me

[RyoShin]

Damn, my mod points had to run out yesterday, this is spot on. Gawker writers (for varying definitions, and I assume this extends to their editors) are paid per article click, which unfortunately leads towards spiteful "articles" because humans can't seem to get over tabloids.

Lifehacker seems to be the lone exception to this (at the least, it's the only Gawker site I think is worth following), probably because their core reason for being is to be helpful so articles that put down others would drive away common readers. (I've been told by a few that Jalopnik, their car enthusiast site, is also worthwhile, but having no interest in cars I'm not capable of measuring its content.)

Re: Rich people fucking over everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no 1st amendment against individuals, just the state. If you harm me by rounding things that are routinely considered private - such as with the hogan case or outing that other guy -you deserve to have your ass handed to you in court. And gawker was trying to avoid that by outspending their opponents in legal fees. This guy just decided to even the playing field.

Gawker can now try and justify their "journalism" in a court of law, versus people they wronged. This is how the system is supposed to work. Justly.

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:Just like the ACLU & co.?

[GameboyRMH]

The ACLU, EFF etc can't hide which cases they're involved in, that's the difference.

Re:Rich people fucking over everyone else

[seth_hartbecke]

Except Gawker is loosing the cases. This very much does imply Gawker did do something wrong.

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.

Irony

[MrLint]

Interesting how Gawker will peddle conspiracy theories when the target is them.

Meh gawker is dead, good riddance.

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?

Re:Folks, you've been had.

[johannesg]

Is anyone else noticing the political stance taken by the article that apparently "right-wing politics" and "trump supporter" are to be considered bad things?

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Crashmarik]

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

So I take it you fought loudly and hard against Brendan Eich being ousted from Mozilla ? Or is this just a sudden dedication to fairplay and individual rights that only manifests when someone whose politics you dislike scores a victory against someone nominally on your side ?

Re:Rich people fucking over everyone else

[sexconker]

Gawker didn't so anything wrong, except offend some rich racist bastard.

Gawker posted a sex tape of Hulk Hogan against his will.

If Fox News posted a sex tape of some female celebrity, and Peter Thiel funded the lawsuit against them, would you say "Fox News didn't so anything wrong, except offend some rich racist bastard."?

This isn't about the 1st Amendment. Nobody is stopping Gawker from saying these things. Nobody from Gawker is going to jail. They're just being held accountable for the direct damages they cause. Whether or not you agree with the amount awarded is another matter.

Murdering arsonists should not jaywalk

[Hognoxious]

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?

Not really. Not directly. Not just for that.

But if they've left a flank hanging in the air, which Gawker appear to have done, you can sure as hell get them indirectly.

It's dirty tactics, but what goes around comes around.

Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[Archangel Michael]

He used Government resources appropriately. Gawker lost the suit.

Libertarians aren't against government, contrary to popular leftwing statists views. The purpose of the government is to provide equal application of laws (something it has abrogated) and ensuring the rights (in the case Hulk Hogan) of individuals are upheld. The fact that the lawsuit was funded by him is irrelevant, except to statists who don't understand libertarianism.

The case here is one where an individual asked the state to protect his rights, and the state found Gawker in violation. The only reason why I think you could even protest this, is because you're a shill for Gawker and think leftwing organizations can do not wrong, because ends justify the means. Or you just kneejerking "anti-liberation" catch phrases because you can't actually think for yourself?

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[crunchygranola]

...The purpose of the government is to provide equal application of laws...

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Anatole France

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[serviscope_minor]

Libertarians aren't against government, contrary to popular leftwing statists views.

No, they're only against bits of the government they don't think will benefit them personally.

is because you're a shill for Gawker

Yes. Gawker paid me to write this post and I'm currently sipping Champaign (well ok cava, they don't pay much). True story.

and think leftwing organizations can do not wrong

You're funny.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[Firethorn]

No, they're only against bits of the government they don't think will benefit them personally.

I don't do drugs, not even alcohol or tobacco. I believe that the War on Drugs needs to be ended because it's a massive imposition on liberty, and not just on drug users. I also think that the current push to ban(at least virtually) vaporizers is wrong, despite zero desire to use one.

No, I do not limit myself to 'bits of the government' that would benefit me personally.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[serviscope_minor]

I don't do drugs, not even alcohol or tobacco. I believe that the War on Drugs needs to be ended because it's a massive imposition on liberty, and not just on drug users.

I think it would be fair to say that you don't believe the DEA in its current form benefits you personally. So, that's not exactly incompatible with what I said. I also happen to agree with you on this one.

No, I do not limit myself to 'bits of the government' that would benefit me personally.

True, but all you just did was list two bits of the government that don't benefit you and you think shouldn't exist.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[Firethorn]

I think it would be fair to say that you don't believe the DEA in its current form benefits you personally.

In it's current form, how many people can say that the DEA benefits them, if they're not being employed by the DEA? It's a law enforcement agency. Most interactions, I'd think, would be negative. Also, note that I didn't say the DEA in my post. There's a lot more than the DEA involved in the war on drugs...

That being said, I listed the war on drugs because it doesn't actually affect me personally very much, positive or negative. Not only do I not use drugs, I'm not looking to use drugs.

Sure, you can twist it out and say that since the DEA 'doesn't benefit me', I'm looking to get rid of it because the less government there is, the less government spending there is, and the less taxes necessary.

But that gets into the point where you can say "No, they're only against bits of the government they don't think will benefit them personally." about everybody.

I actively think that the DEA harms the country. I think that it and the ATF need to be gutted and the law enforcement aspects merged with the FBI, the tax aspects with the IRS*, and the drug regulation with the FDA. DHS needs to be overtaken by the DoD. etc...

*As long as you have tax collection, you need the IRS or an equivalent agency. So I'm not going to play with a re-naming game. You need tax collection to fund law enforcement, courts, defense, etc...

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[david_thornley]

You'd be better off if the War on Drugs ended. Except for the people who directly profit (law enforcement agencies, illegal drug dealers, private prison operators), everybody would be better off. It's a misuse of my tax money (so I'm paying for it) to erode civil liberties (which could bite me some day) for no useful purpose. Ending the War on Drugs will benefit me, even though my one foray into illegal drugs was a few joints over forty years ago.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[Firethorn]

You'd be better off if the War on Drugs ended.

True, but the same thing can be said about ending any government agency with which you perceive to be of negative effectiveness, as opposed to simply not benefiting you directly.

The government is a biological system in that sense - even a small change seemingly completely unrelated can and probably will eventually affect you, in some slight or even drastic way.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[serviscope_minor]

In it's current form, how many people can say that the DEA benefits them,

Likely no one except those who get more power and money directly off it.

But you're missing my point. I was claiming somewhat facetiously that libertarians only want the bits of the government that benefits them. You countered me by saying you didn't want a bit of the government which doesn't benefit you.

That's not exactly a counterpoint.

Now, if you're looking for someone to agree that the war on drugs is a disaster and the DEA needs to go, you have found just that someone. I think the whole war on drugs is an insane idea, and it's simply not supported by any sort of evidence either.

But that gets into the point where you can say "No, they're only against bits of the government they don't think will benefit them personally." about everybody.

Really? Because I'm pretty much in favour of the welfare state, council housing and all of that stuff. I'm a homeowner and so I'm never going to qualify for a council house. Yes I still think that my taxes should pay for them. I'm unlikely to ever collect jobseeker's allowance since I'm a well qualified engineer and so work is unlikely to be too hard to get. I'm generally in favour of of public infrastructure projects in parts of the country I never visit and am unluikely to. None of those things benefit me personally. There are some examples, I'm sure I could come up with plenty more.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[Firethorn]

That's not exactly a counterpoint.

...How'd I miss that? Okay, I was being an idiot when I wrote that. Sorry. Let me be honest enough to admit to screwing up, even if it's just an internet debate.

Let's see, now that I have something of an idea of what you're talking about. I do support quite a few programs, though as I said before, everything interlinks, so if it's beneficial to society as a whole, it's beneficial to me as well, even if not directly. As I try to think of an example, I discover that I'm very good at coming up with indirect links.

Okay - how about a different aspect of my opposition to the war on drugs - I support legalizing, taxing, and regulating more than just Marijuana. Part of the reason for taxing would be to fund addiction treatment centers. Basically the same idea as behind tobacco cessation programs - there's so many different programs funding that that I think that you'd actually have to try to find a smoker who doesn't qualify for a subsidized, if not free, program.

As a non-addict, it doesn't benefit me directly, though indirectly you have the theoretical reduction in crime, making me less likely to be a victim.

Really? Because I'm pretty much in favour of the welfare state, council housing and all of that stuff. I'm a homeowner and so I'm never going to qualify for a council house.

Ah, UK citizen, right? Well, for one I'd say 'never say never', because you never know. Fall on hard times, lose the house somehow, etc...

That being said, I might actually be more radical than you in that aspect. You see, libertarians aren't necessarily against welfare. Now, don't get me wrong, we're against it as it's currently implemented, but we're not against the concept. Quite the contrary. I support replacing welfare with a basic income guarantee. Means tested welfare that is paid out in a dozen different ways is inefficient, and creates incentives to stay on it.

I'm also generally fine with infrastructure in areas I'm not going to. I recognize that you need that 'everywhere'.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[serviscope_minor]

...How'd I miss that? Okay, I was being an idiot when I wrote that. Sorry. Let me be honest enough to admit to screwing up, even if it's just an internet debate.

No worries!

Let's see, now that I have something of an idea of what you're talking about. I do support quite a few programs, though as I said before, everything interlinks, so if it's beneficial to society as a whole, it's beneficial to me as well, even if not directly.

Well, OK. A working society is of benefit to everyone, myself included.

Okay - how about a different aspect of my opposition to the war on drugs - I support legalizing, taxing, and regulating more than just Marijuana. Part of the reason for taxing would be to fund addiction treatment centers. Basically the same idea as behind tobacco cessation programs - there's so many different programs funding that that I think that you'd actually have to try to find a smoker who doesn't qualify for a subsidized, if not free, program.

Same. Legalized and taxed doesn't make it OK, but it makes it a heck of a lot better than illegal. Addiction is bad enough. It's worse when the addicts have to deal with potentially lethal cut drugs and the really scummy criminal element. Besides, the laws empower those crooks. I'd expect it to be regulated up to the eyeballs of course, but making them illegal clearly isn't working.

Ah, UK citizen, right? Well, for one I'd say 'never say never', because you never know. Fall on hard times, lose the house somehow, etc...

True, though given circumstances, a *lot* would have to happen for that to kick in. I ignored things like diability benefit, since accidents do happen. But in general, I'd rather people had a safety net, even though I fully expect to never use it.

That being said, I might actually be more radical than you in that aspect. You see, libertarians aren't necessarily against welfare. Now, don't get me wrong, we're against it as it's currently implemented, but we're not against the concept. Quite the contrary. I support replacing welfare with a basic income guarantee. Means tested welfare that is paid out in a dozen different ways is inefficient, and creates incentives to stay on it.

Seems that there are several branches of libertarianism. One seems to be the survivalist-hut-in-montanna-no-taxes sort. The other seems to be in favour of as much freedom as possible, and taxes because that's how to actually implement that.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[Firethorn]

Seems that there are several branches of libertarianism. One seems to be the survivalist-hut-in-montanna-no-taxes sort. The other seems to be in favour of as much freedom as possible, and taxes because that's how to actually implement that.

I like to say that if you ask a dozen libertarians for their opinion on something, you'll get two dozen answers, and I'm not talking about minor wording differences.

I also think that we have a number of 'members' who are anarchists trying to get away from the name.

That being said, I'm more of a classical libertarian. I might not like taxes(who does?), but I recognize that if you're going to have government services that they need to be paid for.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[Hognoxious]

You acknowledged that government might have a useful function and mentioned taxes without using phrases like "literally parasitic theft of my lifeblood at the point of a stormtrooper's gun".

You also failed to claim that you made the sun, the moon and everything beneath them by the sweat of your own brow.

I doubt most libertarians would accept you. Heck, you're barely even a Republican.

Re:Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases?

[Firethorn]

You acknowledged that government might have a useful function and mentioned taxes without using phrases like "literally parasitic theft of my lifeblood at the point of a stormtrooper's gun".

That's an anarchist. Given that there's 3 major federal agencies that I would eliminate pretty much completely given the chance, you're right, I'm not a Republican.

Randians are also, if they knew their roots, not libertarians, though they come up with the same theories by coincidence, not similarity of thought.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[mjm1231]

No correlation found.
Firstly, no single individual tried to silence or remove Eich. I'll leave the reasons why this matters as a though exercise for those who obviously don't get enough.
Second, Brendan Eich is still completely free to espouse whatever opinions he wants, in whatever medium he chooses.

Re:Gawker is the one who screwed him

[halivar]

But, but, but, libertarian!

hiring mercenaries

[Firethorn]

Hiring mercenaries to attack somebody is explicitly non-libertarian. It is a philosophy of self defense, not offense.

Re:hiring mercenaries

[IMightB]

You're the first person that I have ever heard make this claim regarding the definition of libertarianism. Either sentence.

Re:hiring mercenaries

[AmiMoJo]

Somehow it always becomes a pre-emptive strike in self defence because that guy was totally going to attack me for sure later. And in this case Gawker was reducing his profitability, a direct frontal assault on his wealth, so a barrage of proxy lawsuits was more than justified.

Re:hiring mercenaries

[Firethorn]

"for sure later" implies that there's time to get government forces involved, so no, you're not allowed to hire mercenaries to go attack your rival because your rival is totally going to hire mercenaries to attack you.

That's anarchy and warlordism, not libertarianism.

Also, "barrage"? Do we know of him funding any lawsuits besides Hogan's?

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[CrashNBrn]

So because, David Geithner, the married Conde Nast exec wasn't an Actor nor Politician, Gawker shouldn't be allowed to report that he hired a male escort?

Re:Actually, it's very much a part of the definiti

[Firethorn]

As a libertarian, I see "Might makes right" a lot more coming from leftwing side of things, like when idiots block traffic to protest something nobody in traffic has any connection to, and thinking that is just fine and dandy.

I see "might makes right" as the sad truth of the world far too often. It's why we band up and put power into the hands of government, to hopefully have a neutral party willing to enforce a standard set of rules. The libertarian party are not anarchists, and 'weak' government is a misnomer - the correct phrase is 'limited'. A limited government is one that is only present in the areas granted to it. It should NOT be weak in those areas. It shouldn't be involved in areas where it hasn't been granted jurisdiction.

Anyways, have you noticed how most of the anti-libertarian posters seem to feel the need to post as anonymous cowards, while I'd say it's more the opposite for supporters?

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Anonymous Coward]

So I take it you fought loudly and hard against Brendan Eich being ousted from Mozilla ? Or is this just a sudden dedication to fairplay and individual rights that only manifests when someone whose politics you dislike scores a victory against someone nominally on your side ?

I don't give a shit if Eich was a homophobe or not. The fucker invented Javascript, and that is what is unforgivable.

Re:barratry

[halivar]

It's not barratry if the defendant is guilty.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[MightyMartian]

Well, properly, they are being taken to account for what they did to Hulk Hogan, and the publication of that video is much harder to defend than outing Thiel as a homosexual. The fact is that information gained through questionable, if not outright illegal means, cannot be just universally granted blanket First Amendment protections, and once again courts will be forced to ask "what public good was served by releasing this dubiously-obtained information"?

If this is a blanket First Amendment protection, then revenge porn has essentially been given a complete green light.

Maybe it's not such a bad thing

[OhHellWithIt]

It might not be such a bad thing if Gawker were put out of business. I had never heard of Gawker until I read How Gawker Ripped Off My Newspaper Story seven years ago. Who needs to read the story from its original source when Gawker has published a digest? And this has helped put local newspapers on their back.

Of course, this isn't a lot different from a SLAPP, so it is troubling. The funny thing is that most litigation is supposedly about "being made whole", and our court system evaluates wholeness in dollars and cents, but Thiel seems to want wholeness in destroying the organization that outed him.

That's Anarchists, not libertarians

[Firethorn]

It takes a big government with guns to enforce libel laws, so yes. They are the opposite of libertarian.

Common mistake, libertarians aren't for weak or 'small' government, though we are for a smaller government than is currently in place.

We're for a limited government, which means a government that is restricted in scope of duties, not power to implement said duties. The government is too small/weak if it can't enforce court orders.

Unfortunately, there's a fairly intense(for the size of the party itself) misinformation campaign that mixes up Anarchist views with libertarian views.

For example, we ask why the hell do we have the TSA. We don't try to limit it to, say, 5k employees, we try to get rid of the whole thing. If the FBI is swamped handling cases(murder/kidnapping/theft/etc...), maybe they do need more money for personnel, but the DEA needs to go away. Etc...

Re:That's Anarchists, not libertarians

[david_thornley]

I've done some readings on libertarian views, and they vary a lot. Some people who call themselves libertarians are anarchists, and their beliefs seem to shade into some other libertarians who want a small government. The only semi-official document I read, a Libertarian party platform, was thoroughly impractical.

Re:That's Anarchists, not libertarians

[Firethorn]

Some people who call themselves libertarians are anarchists,

Yeah, a known problem. 'Anarchy' got a bad name, so they're trying to usurp ours. :(

I'm a moderate libertarian, and I disagree with the party a lot, thing is - I disagree with them less than the other parties, so they're who I identify with.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Jason Levine]

Private citizens have the right to voice opposing opinions. They also have the right to vote with their wallet by going elsewhere if they don't like someone associated with a company. For example, if I didn't like Brendan Eich's views, I can say "I'm not using Firefox unless he's no longer associated with the company." That's me expressing my opinion in response to his opinion. It doesn't shut him up - though the company can decide whether or not they want someone espousing a certain opinion to be associated with them.

Then again, my reach is tiny. If I told Gawker "I don't like that you covered X so I'm not reading your site", the folks running Gawker wouldn't even bother shrugging their shoulders. Peter Thiel, however, has the money to bankroll enough lawsuits to make Gawker's operations difficult simply because he doesn't like what they said. So while Peter has the right to protest Gawker's articles, call on people to boycott them, and even sue them if he thinks he has a case, he shouldn't have the right to harass them simply as retaliation for reporting on him negatively. (Then again, the trick would be proving this in a court of law.)

It's exactly the problem with libertarianism

[Maxo-Texas]

Basically the wealthy and powerful get to walk over everyone else in a libertarian society unless there is a magical supersmall but superpowerful government or powerful weapon shop hand weapon which allows everyone else to resist them.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[shaitand]

"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."

Actually, depending on the nature of what those others are saying in many cases private citizens do have a right to shut others up. Defamation, liable, slander... any of this sound familiar?

"In the US, people have is the ability to report the truth and not get sued for it being embarrassing to the parties involved."

What an odd thing to post under a story about a guy funding people who proved that your blanket statement is not accurate. The government is the only entity that has a right not to be sued. Publicly shaming people aka bullying not only makes you a terrible person it also puts you at risk of lawsuits because of the damage it causes.

"So instead of fighting back against Gawker directly, he used his money to help others sue Gawker with the goal of shutting them up."

In other words he funded the perfectly valid suits of others who couldn't afford to pursue them otherwise. Certainly nothing wrong with that. He couldn't have done so if Gawker weren't trash engaging in shady practices because there would be no valid suits to fund. It isn't necessarily true that he himself didn't have valid cause to sue Gawker, he might have just wanted to avoid the spotlight. Gawker made their own bed here.

" 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?"

Legitimate news agencies? Forever. Legitimate news agencies won't have used and abused their rag to humiliate random people, therefore there won't be legitimate cases for the rich guy to fund. Instead, "legitimate" news agencies will just continue reporting the trash that specific groups of rich people tell them to.

Just let me know when they start reporting that Hillary Clinton is under federal investigation and the IT staffer who set up her mail server has been granted immunity based on the information he is able to provide. Let me know when they mention her lead over Sanders is statistical noise that can be defeated by a modest victory in California. Keep an eye out for when they report the proven voter fraud with diebold systems deleting votes, the quarter million disenfranchised voters, the funneling of funds from state DNC contributions to Clinton, and the appointment of Clinton supporters in all strategic positions for the convention. Let's just wait for more coverage of the ties between Clinton's approval of international arms deals only after donations to the Clinton Foundation. These stories are all factual and during a Primary would soar ratings through the roof along with destroying her chances for nomination yet none of this has gotten more than a quick blurb followed by several hours of complaining about Clinton being hurt by Sanders who just won't seem to drop out... and attempts to spin the numbers to distract you from the fact the race is nearly tied.

First person?

[Firethorn]

...Wow. I wonder how that got missed?

Okay. First thing, realize that neither liberal nor conservative philosophies are particularly pacifistic. Second, that there's a difference between an individual using force, and the government doing so.

Individuals and government both have the right to use violence to prevent imminent harm by violence. Otherwise, if you have been harmed through the improper actions of another, the correct action is to ask for redress, and if that is not satisfactory, to sue. After the court passes judgement, yes, violence may ultimately be involved in the enforcement of the court order. Such is life.

Some cites:
source
"One possible position is extreme pacifism, according to which individuals are never permitted to use non-consensual force against others. Another is moderate pacifism, according to which individuals are permitted to use non-consensual force against others only when necessary in self-defense (or the defense of others). This moderate view would allow the use of force against a person to prevent her from wrongfully using force against others, but it would not allow the use of force to rectify past violations (e.g., punish or extract compensation from the rights-violator). Most libertarian positions would allow the use of force for cases of rectification. Many would allow the use of force for retributive punishment, but some—Barnett (1998), for example—reject retributive punishment and insist that compensation for wrongful harms is the sole justification for the rectificatory use of force."
Non-agression principle

Like many philosophical points, a couple sentences is far from enough to adequately explain such a complicated topic.

It's even more complicated in that as a moderate libertarian, I'm willing to set aside the non-agression principle in cases where there's sufficient evidence that holding to it will lead to increased human suffering. It's just that I hold that, in general, it's the best option, and that any breaking from it needs to be carefully weighed and considered.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Hognoxious]

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but if Gawker hadn't behaved like utter arseholes with respect to Hogan there wouldn't have been a backdoor for Thiel to attack through.

(s/for Thiel to attack through/through which Thiel could attack/ if you're a preposition position pedant).

Is There A Reason You Hate Freedom?

[Frosty Piss]

A lot of people are spouting "Freedom of the Press", but really, Gawker and "Journalism" should not be used in relation to each other.

As to this asshat using his money to fight against something that bothers him? Well, it's a free country, right?

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[shaitand]

"Peter Thiel, however, has the money to bankroll enough lawsuits to make Gawker's operations difficult simply because he doesn't like what they said."

True, but there is something he needs besides money to do that, a large number of people with valid claims against Gawker. If these were frivolous lawsuits and people were losing, leaving Gawker to try to recoup legal fees from those who don't have them you might have an argument. But they aren't, these people have valid cases and are winning those cases.

If the tabacco industry said something bad about the guy and he decided to fund the cases of people who had loved ones die of smoking related lung issues I doubt you'd be making this claim. Gawker pissed off a guy with means, Gawker hurt a lot other people, the guy with means decided to help those other people. It's called Karma.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

No, it's only chilling for people who publish naked pictures and video of someone without their consent, and who then defy a court order to remove it.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Triklyn]

unless it's a political contribution to a campaign he believes in. the brendan eich case is much more ominous than this gawker fiasco.

brendan eich's situation makes me nervous for the state of discourse and political speech in this country.

i think there were actually people that, to paraphrase, called for him to recant his political views and religiously held conviction, or they would keep pressuring for his resignation.

he gave 1500 dollars to a cause he believed in, and still believes in. and a lynch mob came and got him fired from his job.

I don't want SMALL SCALE political contributions to be "cause" for termination, do you? what's next?

he's not a little-guy, but he was ousted for doing and thinking what a lot of little-guys do and think.

get money out of politics? sure, but not fucking 1500 dollar contribution money. how do we keep small donors donating to causes they believe in? i guess we can go anonymous, that might work.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Triklyn]

he's not even a homophobe, just a religious nut. ... but he did invent javascript...

Re: Rich people fucking over everyone else

[shaitand]

Exactly. It doesn't matter that he's a rich guy who was embarrassed by what Gawker published about him. His motive for funding these cases is irrelevant, the result is a level playing field for people who, according to our justice system, have valid complaints.

If he were funding loads of frivolous suits against Gawker leaving them to try to reclaim legal fees from the poor defendants it would be a different story. That isn't the case here, these victims are winning when they get to be heard in court.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[tbannist]

True, but there is something he needs besides money to do that, a large number of people with valid claims against Gawker. If these were frivolous lawsuits and people were losing, leaving Gawker to try to recoup legal fees from those who don't have them you might have an argument. But they aren't, these people have valid cases and are winning those cases.

Actually, that's doesn't seem to be an accurate summary. Thiel seems to be funding anyone who's case seems likely to cost Gawker significant money, that's why he's also funding a guy who suing them for saying he didn't invent email. So yes, he's funded at least one valid lawsuit, and would probably fund others if he could find them, but it seems he's also funding frivolous law suits that will likely harm Gawker.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[tbannist]

You forgot to link why Bernie is actually winning.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Crashmarik]

So I take it you fought loudly and hard against Brendan Eich being ousted from Mozilla ? Or is this just a sudden dedication to fairplay and individual rights that only manifests when someone whose politics you dislike scores a victory against someone nominally on your side ?

I don't give a shit if Eich was a homophobe or not. The fucker invented Javascript, and that is what is unforgivable.

Oh you had to bring Javascript into this and make it a religious matter didn't you ?

Re:Rich people fucking over everyone else

[IMightB]

The main question I have is Who The Fuck would want to watch a sex tape of Hulk Hogan?!

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[shaitand]

Har har. Only the pledged delegates are locked in to Hillary, the super delegates mostly indicated their support before Sanders was even on the table. A 60% in California would give Sanders the lead in pledged delegates at which point he would be "winning." This is certainly quite possible and reasonable since he is the most popular candidate and his opponent is under federal investigation and based on the immunity deal most likely an inevitable indictment.

It would be political suicide to nominate a candidate who will be under federal indictment during the campaign. Unless of course you think Hillary can use her connections to stall that until winning the Presidency at which point she could pardon herself as her first act of presidency. Oh yeah, quite a legacy for the first woman president.

Who is funding Gawker?

[tomhath]

Has anyone checked to see who is behind the editorial direction of Gawker? Most media outlets are nothing more than the mouthpiece for someone with money and an agenda.

Re:LOL! Hogan as a little guy?

[tnk1]

He may well be a piece of shit, but let's face it, even if he wasn't, Gawker would have run the same story if it was there to run. That's what they *do*.

So, yeah, Hogan may deserve a little bit of his own comeuppance, but that doesn't mean he can't be a useful means of making sure Gawker gets *theirs*.

So would these qualify for SLAPP lawsuits?

[LetterRip]

So this sounds like they meet the definition of "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation", would be an interesting tactic.

Re:barratry

[Firethorn]

Or even if the case itself is 'with merit',

The best case of barratry I remember was the DC Judge who went nuts on a dry-cleaning business for losing his pants. Suing a small business for $67M.

Note: The dry cleaners offered to settle for $3k-$12k, but the judge refused, and was representing himself in court.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[ooloorie]

Gawker is a gossip blog, not "a free press", because being part of "a free press" requires at least complying with some professional ethical standards and codes of conduct.

And even if they were part of "a free press", that gives them exactly zero immunity from lawsuits.

My freedom vs yours

[jandersen]

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?

Freedom with a capital 'F' and a loud voice so often means only "my freedom" - especially when you are rich and feel entitled to take what you want. It is so very rare that it actually means "I will defend you freedom, even if it costs me".

Evil fighting against evil?

[piojo]

Ever since I read about Gawker taking a quote out of context and basically destroying someone's life, it's hard for me to feel sorry for them.

Since when the whole story came to light, Gawker didn't do the responsible thing and discipline Biddle, I conclude they didn't learn anything about responsible journalism. News flash: creating news is explicitly not part of a reporter's job.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Jason Levine]

Actually, depending on the nature of what those others are saying in many cases private citizens do have a right to shut others up. Defamation, liable, slander... any of this sound familiar?

In those cases, you are suing based on untrue allegations. Not based solely on "I don't like what you said about me." If you said something totally true about me, but embarrassing nonetheless, I couldn't sue you because "I don't like that you embarrassed me."

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Triklyn]

yeah, with the eich thing. everyone was well within their rights. but i'm not sure if they should be.

in these cases I like to flip the script and remove contextual details. get a bit further from it.

from my point of view, if he'd been pressured into resigning over donating and not recanting For same sex marriage, I would have a problem.

from my point of view, without contextual detail, it looks a lot like someone is being forced out of their job by an organized group of people that don't share his opinion about a topic that would have and has no bearing on his work performance.

the question I ask myself is, do i want to live in a country where the political views, where diversity of opinion and thought is dissuaded?

conformity of thought is not a virtue.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[shaitand]

Actually I could still sue you if your allegations caused harm or violated my privacy. There are plenty of valid reason to sue someone based on what they say about you. The absolute defense is simply not to bully and harass people for shock and awe ratings.

Even if someone doesn't have a valid suit, it doesn't mean they haven't been horribly wronged by Gawker. But as already stated elsewhere, these aren't frivolous suits. These people are winning valid suits against Gawker for terrible acts Gawker has committed against them. The most notable thing to report here is that a disgruntled billionaire was required for them to find some justice.

It doesn't matter what motive this man had in helping these people. He is helping people who can't defend themselves fight back against a petty and malicious bully who in some cases ruined their lives. That is a just cause and remains so regardless of whether he took it up with a noble spirit or for petty reasons.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[david_thornley]

The story, as I remember it, is that he gave something like $100K to prevent same-sex marriage from becoming legal. That's a rather large contribution to stop something that doesn't harm other people, and it potentially hurt a lot of people Mozilla was trying to be friendly with.

Also, I don't remember him being sued. He resigned because he'd become a liability to Mozilla as CEO.

Nobody's saying Eich couldn't make political contributions, just that he made himself some enemies that way, and became something of a hot potato.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Triklyn]

he donated 1000 dollars to prop 8. and wouldn't apologize for having a personal belief.
wikipedia summary is pretty accurate.

"Andrew Sullivan said of Eich's departure that "there is not a scintilla of evidence that he has ever discriminated against a single gay person at Mozilla"[27] and the episode "should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society."'

he wasn't sued, but he was forced out. ... if you're not free to donate 1k how about 500? how about 50? how small is the contribution you're allowed to make before others aren't allowed to hold your employment hostage for contributing to a political cause, or idea, or party?

i literally hope ok cupid burns to the ground and its management dies screaming.

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[Triklyn]

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

it's so capricious isn't it

Gawker reports:?

[DarthVain]

Really? A "news" story about Gawker by Gawker on a secret plan to destroy them because Gawker reported on a billionaire who funded lawsuits against Gawker...

Really?

Gawker.

Does anything think they have a shred of integrity at this point?

Re:Don't worry, nobody will care

[GameboyRMH]

i literally hope ok cupid burns to the ground and its management dies screaming.

For using their words to express an opinion, not even their money as Brendan Eich did. How very tolerant and double-standard-free of you!