Peter Thiel's Lawyer Wants To Silence Reporting On Trump's Hair (gawker.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Follow the report that Gawker has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after facing multiple lawsuits funded by tech billionaire Peter Thiel, it's being reported that Thiel's lawyer, Charles J. Harder, is threatening to sue Gawker for reporting on the company that made Donald Trump's hair, claiming copyright prohibits Gawker from republishing his threat. He sent the company a letter on behalf of Edward Ivari, the owner of the company Gawker suggests may be behind Trump's hair. Gawker said it was sent a six-page letter that claims the story "was 'false and defamatory,' invaded Ivari's privacy, intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and committed 'tortious interference' with Ivari's business relations." Gawker reporter Ashley Feinberg suggested in a lengthy Gawker story that Trump secretly underwent Ivari International's $60,000 "microcylinder intervention" treatment, with the company's offices located on the 25th floor of Trump Tower. Gawker called Ivari's claims "ridiculous," and noted that the statements at issue were pulled from his own publicity materials and from public records of a 2001 lawsuit against the company.

Comments

Really?

[beheaderaswp]

This matters? WTH?

With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

We. Are. Doomed.

Re:Really?

[Black Parrot]

This matters? WTH?

With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

IP news is always a hot topic here...

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://youtu.be/iPis68U7bdo

So this is what they were talking about at the meeting. Trump's hair! I knew it!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, what matters is that a prominent silicon valley VC is fairly publicly going after Gawker for personal reasons. The Hulk Hogan lawsuit, while valid, was bankrolled by Thiel. Now, Gawker is going bankrupt. And Thiel's lawyer continues to go after them.

While I'm not exactly a fan of Gawker, nor do I think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was unfounded - the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.

Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what happened to Gawker?"

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://youtu.be/iPis68U7bdo

So this is what they were talking about at the meeting. Trump's hair! I knew it!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? I do not have the ability to crush a media outlet I don't like. I really don't understand why it's somehow selfish that I don't think that the rich should have that ability either.

Re:Really?

[ragahast]

This matters? WTH? With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

I'm guessing from your comment that you're ignorant of the context here. Peter Thiel personally dislikes Gawker, and is now bankrolling third-party lawsuits against them. It's "news" because the very wealthy are openly perverting the United State's permissive litigation rules in order to quell disfavored speech. It's "for nerds" because those wealthy individuals happen to be high profile tech VCs targeting new media websites using, among other things, intellectual property law.

Re:Really?

[TroII]

I do not have the ability to crush a media outlet I don't like.

And which media outlets have published secretly-recorded video of you or your friends engaging in sex acts? Gawker crushed itself by breaking the law, refusing a court order, and then having one of its executives make wisecracks during deposition.

Re:Really?

[Man On Pink Corner]

Don't do illegal things or commit civil torts, and you have nothing to worry about from anyone, whether rich or poor.

In practice that doesn't work, of course, because everybody breaks laws all the time. So the next best thing to do is to avoid calling attention to yourself by acting like a complete sociopath. Unfortunately Gawker's founder skipped kindergarten that day.

Re:Really?

[Guy Harris]

While I'm not exactly a fan of Gawker, nor do I think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was unfounded - the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.

Translation: Rich people should have fewer rights than I do.

"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:Really?

[AK Marc]

News Flash: Rich people already have more rights than you.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Punishment yes but it shouldn't be so extreme as to put them out of business, though I expect the fine will be greatly reduced on appeal.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last laugh will be on you when Trump's hair gains self-awareness and launches the nukes.

Re:Really?

[whoever57]

With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

Yes, you should be worried about the ability of a thin-skinned person with lots of money to shut down a media outlet. Today Gawker, tomorrow the Washington Post, then the NY Times.

Do you think that a democracy can function if the only news that is published is news that offends no one?

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

but it shouldn't be so extreme as to put them out of business

It should be far worse than that.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's another lawsuit against Gawker. In the immortal words of Mortal Kombat: FINISH HIM.

Gawker deserves to die over and over.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, Gawker is going bankrupt. And Thiel's lawyer continues to go after them.

feels good

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:Really?

[ET3D]

US people are obsessed with Trump, and are influential enough on this site that this kind of news rises to the top.

But hey, I learned about a new technique for hair restoration, and that's got to be worth something.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do illegal things or commit civil torts, and you have nothing to worry about from anyone, whether rich or poor.

In practice that doesn't work, of course, because everybody breaks laws all the time. So the next best thing to do is to avoid calling attention to yourself by acting like a complete sociopath. Unfortunately Gawker's founder skipped kindergarten that day.

Had he acted like a complete sociopath he probably would have been fine. Do you know much about sociopaths?

Sociopaths are highly skilled at telling people what they want to hear. You know that bit of ego most people have, that likes to feel successful? That likes to be complimented? That likes to feel "right"? That likes to be reassured that its cherished worldviews (whatever they may be) are the same thing as objective fact so there's no real need to look too hard for falsifying evidence, no pressing desire to consider viewpoints one doesn't necessarily like and entertain how they could be true? Well, a sociopath sees that as a weakness. It looks sort of like a puppet-string to them. Few things provide more pleasure to a sociopath than to tug on this string and manipulate people in such a way that whatever they wind up doing, they think it's their own idea. A lot of salespeople/marketers are trained in similar techniques because they work.

For this reason, people who are not particularly discerning will often think a sociopath is very charming or charismatic. They might not believe you when you try to tell them otherwise, at least not until they personally witness unethical behavior. Even then, that ego of theirs doesn't want to admit it could have been so wrong about its initial judgment, that it could be so easily duped, so they may even defend what they witnessed until it's completely indefensible!

A ruthless dick who just wants to make sure you KNOW he's in control, like a lot of petty tyrants in positions of authority at too many workplaces, is just a ruthless dick. They might seem crude and amateurish to a real sociopath because their methods are obvious and tend to create opposition and resentment. An actual sociopath wouldn't have made the mistake you describe because it would obviously not be in his/her own interests. It wouldn't help them to get what they want. What you're describing is simple hubris.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

This matters? WTH? With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

I'm guessing from your comment that you're ignorant of the context here. Peter Thiel personally dislikes Gawker, and is now bankrolling third-party lawsuits against them. It's "news" because the very wealthy are openly perverting the United State's permissive litigation rules in order to quell disfavored speech. It's "for nerds" because those wealthy individuals happen to be high profile tech VCs targeting new media websites using, among other things, intellectual property law.

It sounds like new media needs to learn the same thing the pirates have learned: decentralization is a good thing, while single prominent entities that piss off powerful interests can be targeted and brought down.

What's that saying about how tyrannical laws are often first targeted against "scoundrels" before becoming entrenched and used against a wider base of targets? In the name of "anti-piracy" intellectual property laws have expanded and their enforcement has grown. The only real surprise is that either: this doesn't happen more often, or that it does but isn't generally more well known.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against
scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped
at all." -- H. L. Mencken

Re:Really?

[mvdwege]

No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.

Once more proving that Libertarianism is nothing more than an attempt to sell Aristocracy to the gullible.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

Yes, you should be worried about the ability of a thin-skinned person with lots of money to shut down a media outlet. Today Gawker, tomorrow the Washington Post, then the NY Times.

Do you think that a democracy can function if the only news that is published is news that offends no one?

Within mainstream media, what we have now is an overwhelming tendency to only publish news that doesn't offend the two biggest sponsors (by far) who purchase advertising: the pharmaceutical and food industries. For example, this is why the average American doesn't know that prescription drugs - taken as prescribed and in the correct doses - are one of the leading causes of death every year. Or that there are some 17,000 chemicals that can be used as food additives that do not have to be specified on the ingredients list, and many of these are actually addictive.

Or that the studies showing GMO crops to be safe were short-term studied sponsored by the biotech firms, while the long-term studies showed all kinds of tumor growths and early deaths (and if you think about it - the main purpose of genetic engineering is so that the crop can tolerate being sprayed with poison, or produce its own - so this will remain true until/unless the tech is put to some other use). Or that the studies showing "vitamin E is useless" used the wrong kind that does not occur in nature (they used l-alpha tocopherol instead of d-alpha and mixed tocopherols with tocotrienols) because using the wrong kind obtains the desired result. Or that a combination of vitamin C and grapeseed extract was as effective against ADHD as Adderall. I could go on and on, meanwhile people are getting sicker, it's hard to find anyone who doesn't take some kind of prescription, and treatments are much more profitable than cures.

Re:Really?

[Z80a]

You never know when that newest vr game may include a trump hair "hat".

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You *HAVE* to be kidding. Or you are a massive hypocrite.

The only people weeping for scumbags like Gawker are the left-wing progressives hate mobs. It was their "Der Sturmer" and was a platform to attack anyone who had "disfavoured" views.

An actual media company could fall back on good reporting as a defense, but Gawker has nothing.

It's not a media outfit. It's a "new media" blog platform full of hipsters writing halfwitted opinion pieces dressed as news. Now you have the right to do that sort of thing - free speech - but you are responsible for your lies. You can be sued. Gawker has been bullying ordinary people for years because they tweeted a bad word, or told as tasteless joke - people who could not fight back and had to run when faced with the progressive hate hobs whipped up by Gawker.

Gawker was considered an untouchable force before it was exposed as a cesspool of nasty ignorant, incompetent hipsters with no understanding of the actual technology, commerce or real world by #GamerGate.

That someone took it as a signal to finish the job... isn't surprising... and should be welcomed by every person with a genuine belief in free speech.

Good riddance.

Re: Really?

[oobayly]

I originally read the "Why this matters, WTH" comment as just referring to Trump's hair, not the actual lawsuit which is not only ridiculous but also a concerning attempt at closing down from of the press.

I really don't get the obsession about the man's hair though. Surely there are more important aspects of Trump to worry about.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.

Once more proving that Libertarianism is nothing more than an attempt to sell Aristocracy to the gullible.

Huh what? Do you even know what libertarian IS? Hint: their political philosophy revolves around using state power only when absolutely necessary. A libertarian state would less vigorously enforce IP law. What we have right now is an aristocracy! Who do you think bought and paid for all the new copyright laws of the last decade or so? Libertarians? No. MPAA/RIAA and the monied interests behind them. That's what an aristocracy does. You could also call it a plutocracy.

It's a masterwork of PR that so many people like you condemn one of the few ideas that, if put into practice, would help reverse the terrible direction of statism and increasing centralization that this country has embraced over the last 50 years or so.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even work in theory. Plenty of people make enemies while exercising rights completely within the bounds of the law. Look at the secret service scandal, or any entity that's bankrupted a smaller one with baseless but drawn-out litigation.

Re:Really?

[JonnyCalcutta]

Its 'Anarchy Lite' - all the great flavour of anarchy, with no loss of privelage

Re:Really?

[mvdwege]

As I said, the gullible. QED.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

When Gawker declared bankruptcy, that gave them protection from paying out to Hogan.

Meaning that without Thiel, Hogan might have posted a loss on the case.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gawker outed Thiel as a fag. So that's why he's got it in for them. Waging war by proxy is a time-honoured tradition. (or should I say, homoured.)

It's not exactly random, "could happen to you next!" as the activists like to say.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like.

The "problem" then, is that the poorer cannot afford to destroy the media entities that cause them (illegal) problems?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

because the very wealthy are openly perverting the United State's permissive litigation rules in order to quell disfavored speech.

So there is the core of the problem then - "permissive litigation rules". Anyone with a strong will, will use any means provided to them. If the means costs money, then it will be the rich using these means.

The rich will use their money to their own advantage. If you have a problem, work to fix the laws they're abusing instead of blaming the rich for this.

Re:Really?

[Carewolf]

You know what else would be hot? Trump's PUBIC hair

I doubt he has any. He is just using a combover from his ass.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't un-see.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do anything that a lawyer might possibly interpret as illegal.

LOL.

Re:Really?

[jafiwam]

Gawker outed Thiel as a fag. So that's why he's got it in for them. Waging war by proxy is a time-honoured tradition. (or should I say, homoured.)

It's not exactly random, "could happen to you next!" as the activists like to say.

Why would they do that?

Either, a) they are just digging up dirt to get clicks

Or b) they are a similar attack dog for someone else

Who the fuck is Theil? (ok, no a) is out)

Someone is just destroying someone else's attack dog. Big fucking deal, who cares.

Worry about Soros and the Koch brothers are doing, worry about big money manipulation from Saudi Arabia on Clinton instead. That's much more dangerous to YOU.

Re:Really?

[bucket_brigade]

I thought the details of the technology behind the hair was fairly interesting?

Re:Really?

[washort]

Funny, I don't remember this kind of outcry when Bezos bought the Washington Post. Why is it any less worrying when billionaires own media outlets?

Re:Really?

[Layzej]

Yes, you should be worried about the ability of a thin-skinned person with lots of money to shut down a media outlet. Today Gawker, tomorrow the Washington Post, then the NY Times.

Do you think that a democracy can function if the only news that is published is news that offends no one?

Speaking of which, Donald Trump is pulling The Washington Post’s press credentials to cover his events because he is upset with the newspaper’s coverage of his campaign.

He also promises to ‘open up’ libel laws to make suing the media easier.

The Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, called Trump’s action “nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press” and pledged that his paper would keep reporting vigorously about the presumptive Republican nominee.

Re:Really?

[Daemonik]

The video in the Hogan case wasn't "secretly recorded". Bollea knew the video was recorded which is why he was freaking out about it going public because he knew it showed what a racist piece of shit he is. Bollea talked about having sex with Bubba's wife with Bubba's permission on Howard Stern's show several times, which is why the video was news in the first place.

Re:Really?

[Daemonik]

Gawker outed Thiel as a fag. So that's why he's got it in for them.

No, they did not. Thiel's sexuality was known around Silicon Valley, Theil just didn't want some people (The Saudi's in particular) knowing because he was trying to get them to invest in his dodgy hedge fund. Theil's more pissed off that Gawker exposed his crappy businesses, his influence over Facebook, his rather backwards views on women and his Libertarian lunacy.

Re:Really?

[Daemonik]

It would depend on how many they own, and how influential they are personally over that portfolio. Like Rupert Murdock owns Fox News, but Roger Ailes is the one actually pulling it's strings.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that the EFF also bankrolls lawsuits against companies they don't like, right? You just happen to agree with them on the merits of the cases.

Re:Really?

[toonces33]

You owe me a new keyboard - mine has coffee all over it now.

But it would technically be a comb-under, I think.

Re:Really?

[DrXym]

I could go on and on

To that we're in no doubt. Too bad you didn't find the time to critically appraise what you've read on some woo website before mindlessly parroting it..

Re:Really?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I'm guessing from your comment that you're ignorant of the context here. Peter Thiel personally dislikes Gawker, and is now bankrolling third-party lawsuits against them. It's "news" because the very wealthy are openly perverting the United State's permissive litigation rules in order to quell disfavored speech.

I can only say that outside of Gawker's legal team, I think just about every lawyer in the USA would argue that the system is working perfectly and has no problem at all with what Thiel is doing and would not consider it perversion.

Re:Really?

[ausekilis]

And yet those impulse buy paparrazi rags are still on sale at the grocery store. Honestly, who really gives a crap about "Obscure Soap Opera Actors 3rd cousin gave birth to an alien!"? There must be a market for that brain garbage because those "magazines" and sites like Gawker continue to pop up and exist.

Gawker is one case where voting with your wallet simply does not work. Since they own other, (arguably) more reputable and popular sites, they get some portion of the profits. Sure, their bankruptcy is attributable to a lawsuit funded by a billionaire with a grudge. However, I look at it more like "Crap reporting overstepped libel bounds and got their asses handed to them". It may set precedent for the rich directing media, but I hope it also sets precedent for the legal consequences of libelous reporting.

Now if only we could get Fox News and CNN to report more facts instead of political opinion...

Re:Really?

[ausekilis]

Can Fox News be next?

Re:Really?

[Mashiki]

No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.

So Gawker didn't flaunt the law and refuse to take down the sex tape when ordered to by the court? Who knew. Gawker also doesn't have double standards on publishing sex tapes or nudes either? Who knew.

You're just so damn upset that someone actually had the money after a decade to actually be able to provide a defense against Gawker acting like pricks, either posting sex tapes, nudes, outting people's sexuality, destroying lives and could actually fight back for a change.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not know this, but in general, most libertarians agree that the state should continue to exist in a minimalist form. Mostly to fund the courts and a reduced police force, especially the courts considering the importance of contract law to libertarianism.

Knowing this now, do you agree that seeing a libertarian take advantage of the courts is of no surprise?

The trouble is, the current alternative is far worse. Apparently socialism is a way to sell the government to big corporations, because that's what keeps happening.

Re:Really?

[Phreakiture]

That is also a ridiculously tortured summary. It should go like this: Edward Ivar, the maker of Donald Trump's hairpiece, is suing Gawker Media to stifle reporting about that hairpiece. He has hired lawyer Charles J. Harder to represent him in the case. Harder is the same lawyer who represents billionaire Peter Thiel, who is also suing Gawker media Harder is attempting to prevent republication of legal documents he has sent to Gawker, claiming copyright on them.

Once you de-torture and normalize the wording, the "news for nerds" aspect of it is made clear to be not present. Same for "stuff that matters."

Re:Really?

[drsmithy]

While I'm not exactly a fan of Gawker, nor do I think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was unfounded - the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.

Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what happened to Gawker?"

Libertarianism writ large. Nobody should be surprised.

Remember, it's equality cuz everyone is subject to the same laws !

Re:Really?

[argStyopa]

Calling Gawker a 'media entity' is probably being generous. I'm glad you didn't even try for 'journalist' or something serious.

Gawker is barely a step up from the office scuttlebutt in terms of pandering to the lowest common denominator. They make the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail look like the flippin' NYT in terms of fact checking and intellectual rigor.

In another time, the vulgar 'hitpiece' style of commentary would have marked them as fodder only for the lowest of the low, not to be taken seriously. They could say whatever they wanted about whomever because they were a $100 million conglomerate, immune to any consequence. Well, there's always a bigger fish and finally, they pissed off someone with the cash to beat them.

Good riddance.

Re:Really?

[ThatsMyNick]

worry about big money manipulation from Saudi Arabia on Clinton instead.

A hacked website was used as a source for that, which is news for a geek. But I do not have to worry about big Saudi money manipulating Clinton, because that is bullshit. Only the guileable have to worry about that.

Re:Really?

[squiggleslash]

Bezos bought the Post as an investment, not as a means to shut down criticism. The Post has been no worse since he bought it.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're describing goes well beyond a simple sociopath, but I like your style. Although I think you may be a sociopath.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation? Because wasn't one of the sticking points on the lawsuit he just won that he didn't know it was recorded? Your statement disagrees with a court decision so you'd better have some pretty good sources. And talking about sleeping with somebody and finding out they recorded it without your knowledge are very different things.

Re:Really?

[ultranova]

With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

No, but we should absolutely be worried about yet another attempt to use copyright law to diminish freedom: "Thiel's lawyer, Charles J. Harder, is threatening to sue Gawker for reporting on the company that made Donald Trump's hair, claiming copyright prohibits Gawker from republishing his threat."

All such abuses should be reported to help depotentate and overturn copyright law ASAP, least the Information Age becomes a time of artificial scarcity rather than the era of plenty it has the potential to be.

Re:Really?

[mvdwege]

Since when is having a double standard something you need to call in the State for to arbitrate? Oh, of course, only when it's the 21st century Earls and Dukes that are the target.

As I said in my first post, the gullible.

Re:Really?

[mvdwege]

Nah, when I see shibboleths like 'statism', I know I'm dealing with the terminally stupid, so I don't bother refuting anything they post.

Re:Really?

[ultranova]

Once more proving that Libertarianism is nothing more than an attempt to sell Aristocracy to the gullible.

But not those dumb enough to believe the lie. No, like Nigerian letters Libertarianism goes after those with an overblown ego, those who think they are going to be the Aristocrats. But unfortunately, the result for the rest of us is worse than just spam.

That's why I think we should all support the Free State Project. Having them all huddle in their Gulch means the rest of us can start rebuilding our society free from interference.

Re:Really?

[mrchaotica]

The problem is that either (a) he shouldn't have the power to leverage the State to destroy Gawker for unrelated reasons, or (b) everybody should have the power to leverage the State to destroy Gawker for unrelated reasons. Either way, Thiel's money shouldn't matter -- but as this situation shows, we have a government which requires justice to be bought, and that's a problem!

Re: Really?

[luis_a_espinal]

Punishment yes but it shouldn't be so extreme as to put them out of business, though I expect the fine will be greatly reduced on appeal.

Well, if a business committed crimes for which punitive damages exceeded your ability to pay, then being put out of business is a result (and punishment) of said crimes. That is a ethical/moral failure of the business entity, not of the legal system.

Re:Really?

[mrchaotica]

You *HAVE* to be kidding. Or you are a massive hypocrite.

No, defending Gawker even though they're terrible assholes is exactly the opposite of hypocrisy. It's sort of like how the ACLU defends even the KKK's right to free speech.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real question is why was it OK for gawker to publish this sex vid against his will, but posting pics from the fappening was somehow morally wrong?
It's not like those celeb pics were taken secretly.
Either they are both wrong, or both perfectly fine.

Re:Really?

[Ol Olsoc]

This matters? WTH?

With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

We. Are. Doomed.

We are also doomed because it appears in 21st century 'Murrica, Donald Trump's hair source is considered Top Secret.

Re:Really?

[Talderas]

I can only say that outside of Gawker's legal team, I think just about every lawyer in the USA would argue that the system is working perfectly and has no problem at all with what Thiel is doing and would not consider it perversion.

With the Gawker legal team, I imagine their impression would be dependent on how well Gawker employees were following their coaching and advice in court.

Re:Really?

[mrchaotica]

Or that there are some 17,000 chemicals that can be used as food additives that do not have to be specified on the ingredients list, and many of these are actually addictive.

Got a link for that one? Sounds interesting.

Or that the studies showing GMO crops to be safe were short-term studied sponsored by the biotech firms, while the long-term studies showed all kinds of tumor growths and early deaths (and if you think about it - the main purpose of genetic engineering is so that the crop can tolerate being sprayed with poison, or produce its own - so this will remain true until/unless the tech is put to some other use).

That's something I wish the anti-GMO movement would emphasize more: "it's not that we're irrationally hysterical about the minor difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering, it's that having a 'this food is GMO' label is an excellent proxy for 'this food has tons of RoundUp sprayed all over it!'"

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Gawker can "publish" whatever they want, but they have to take responsibility for libel and lies. That's free speech.

You're talking about "consequence free" speech.
.

Re:Really?

[Ol Olsoc]

the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.

Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what happened to Gawker?"

Nothing new. Its a time honored American practice of using the legal system to destroy your opponents when you have the piasters and they don't. It is the inverse of the sue the person with the deepest pockets concept.

Re: Really?

[Ol Olsoc]

He didn't, fuckwit. They crushed themselves. Kill yourself.

Lookie who escaped from tumblr!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once more proving that Libertarianism is nothing more than an attempt to sell Aristocracy to the gullible."

Gawd, would you STFU. One individual does not represent the entirety of Libertarianism.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's condemn an entire political philosophy based on one individual. My neighbor is a racist, and also happens to be a Democrat, so I guess all Democrats are racists.

Re:Really?

[TeknoHog]

You know what else would be hot? Trump's PUBIC hair ...

I'm pretty sure all of that reporting is already in the pubic domain.

Re:Really?

[Talderas]

Speaking of which, Donald Trump is pulling The Washington Post’s press credentials to cover his events because he is upset with the newspaper’s coverage of his campaign.

The Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, called Trump’s action “nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press” and pledged that his paper would keep reporting vigorously about the presumptive Republican nominee.

Of course he would. The press has changed over the years. They've become addicted to the special press access that they get to people where they get force fed whatever those people decide to feed them. Like scraps from the table. The Post forgot that's what the access gives them and they lost it. Now they have to do reporting the old fashioned way or just write opinion pieces and regurgitate what others report.

Re:Really?

[bluefoxlucid]

You, too, could be sued for billions and have your home and car taken and your wages garnished for publishing a blog post insulting someone's shitty hair.

Re:Really?

[ColdWetDog]

Nah, they have the same rights as the rest of us. It's just easier for them to pay for it.

Re:Really?

[Archangel Michael]

The funny thing is, the people making fun of Trump's Hair, are often the same people that go nuts when people make fun of how bad Hillary looks (pantsuits n stuff).

I just wish the two parties would grow up and act like adults, but sadly it is only a pipe dream.

Re:Really?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

This just in: "Batboy is new official Gawker reporter"

Re:Really?

[Archangel Michael]

Nah, it is much easier for rich people to buy off the state to protect their "rights". When the state itself is set against its citizens, the rich can pay to avoid the annoyances the state issues.

The problem isn't rich people, the problem is a unfair state, that doesn't take our rights seriously.

Re:Really?

[tnk1]

Who is *really* the victim of this?

Considering what a bunch of dicks that Gawker could be, I'm not sure I'm upset that one rich guy went after a prickish media organization. What we miss here is that Thiel is rich, but Gawker was equally untouchable to normal people. They're a gossip rag covering themselves in the freedom of the press with their own set of lawyers which are likely well paid, if not as well paid as Thiel's proxies.

If Gawker decided that, for some odd reason, my life was going to be under their microscope, I wouldn't be able to do shit about it, even if I was justified. Hell, even Hulk Hogan couldn't really have touched them without Thiel's money, and while Hogan is certainly not the richest man on Earth, he's probably better able to obtain and pay for legal counsel than I am.

So, I can see the concern, because this fight pretty much rips the covers off of the reality of how things really work. I can't affect either one of them, so it's sort of like Godzilla fighting Mothra or something. All I could ever do is watch, but I'm glad they're keeping each other busy.

Our system only plasters over the realities that still exist out there. The press is no more my champion than Peter Thiel. The reason the press is useful is that they make money on exposing things that might be in my interests to know, but ultimately they're trying to sell information for money. And that doesn't prevent them from being overbearing, abusive, and working for their own agenda. If they have too much ability to act with impunity, they can have a poor effect on society, just like everyone else. So, yeah Thiel is a rich guy with a grudge, but this is more of a natural selection thing where press outlets who act as if they are completely untouchable are brought back into line.

Re:Really?

[Archangel Michael]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

I'll sit right here while you dig up something on the Koch brothers as a retort. /grabpopcorn

Re:Really?

[tnk1]

I don't think any reputable media with actual editorial standards is overly concerned about this. People just don't like seeing the rich flex their wallets like this.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.

Once more proving that Libertarianism is nothing more than an attempt to sell Aristocracy to the gullible.

I'm sure if he donated $10 million to Media Matters to shut up the NRA, you'd be a-ok with that.

Re:Really?

[tnk1]

Agreed. You can't just be a media organization and have no responsibility to the truth or privacy under the law. I agree that if a media organization maintains journalistic ethics and stays within the law, they should not be screwed with. But they aren't supposed to be untouchable.

While I don't like the way this went down, I have to admit, I'm glad someone had the ability to take them on. Some parts of the press seem to get away with a lot that perhaps they should not. And they do have a lot of real power, so that should concern us as much as the power that the rich has.

Re:Really?

[Skuld-Chan]

It was news because Theil bankrolls a lot of anti-gay initiatives as well - despite being gay himself.

Re:Really?

[mvdwege]

"Once more" clearly suggests that I do not base my opinion on the basis of one individual

Of course, illiterate peasants are necessary for the new Aristocracy to feel powerful, so I don't blame you for not being able to read, you poor gullible fool.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

The way you are choosing to frame the lawsuit is very telling.

Personally, I prefer to frame it as a lawsuit about silencing someone by claiming that a threat that was given to that someone is somehow protected by copyright.

Re:Really?

[T.E.D.]

With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?

Do you seriously think this will stop with the hair? His last "STFU" lawsuit was a smashing success, he's trying it again, but you think "this time" it won't progress any further? This is a guy with enough money to bankrupt media outlets through barratry, his favorite candidate is already getting ALL the media coverage, and now he's suing to discorage negative parts of that coverage. Do you truly not see where this is leading?

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

They got what they deserved. Deal with it.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

implying that anyone actually respects the Washington Post or the NY Times

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't, fuckwit. They crushed themselves. Kill yourself.

Lookie who escaped from tumblr!

No, you're thinking 4chan, a tumblr-kin would have invoked feminism.

Re:Really?

[CaptainLard]

Worry about Soros and the Koch brothers are doing, worry about big money manipulation from Saudi Arabia on Clinton instead. That's much more dangerous to YOU.

How are we supposed to even know what they are doing if the precedent being set is to just sue (at least for now, political prisons are next) all investigators into oblivion? I'm more worried about trumps plan to open libel laws and his habit of denying access to anyone who challenges him on pretty much anything...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they did not.

They didn't? What's this link go to then? gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people
Oh, you mean "They did, but, like, .... uhh.... it wasn't that bad... because... like... everyone already knew and stuff?"
Oh... ok... so it wasn't that bad, because he was only engaging in business with a place that would kill him for that sort of thing. How about we fly YOU over to Saudi Arabia for the weekend, on a business deal, and then... you know, tell the country that you're gay?

Does that sound fair?

Fuck you.

Re:Really?

[WhiplashII]

In addition, consider that if Gawker had done something evil/illegal to you (a person that cannot afford a lawsuit), a person in Thiel's position may decide to bankroll your lawsuit for their own purposes.

So this isn't only good for the rich, where Gawker like companies can't piss them off: it is good for the little guy, because hurting the little guy illegally can now get you sued even if the little guy can't afford a lawsuit.

So rich get a benefit of 5x, but the poor at least get a benefit of x. This is a win-win, I don't see the issue. (Though I agree it would be better if the little guy could defend themselves without a rich benefactor)

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, when I see shibboleths like 'statism', I know I'm dealing with the terminally stupid, so I don't bother refuting anything they post.

That's exactly how I feel about anyone using QED without actually making an argument. They're generally smug douchebags who can't believe the whole world doesn't already agree with them. When one encounters them in person, it's important to remember that you have to get them to swing first because they're really not worth the jail time. But it's easy to be a douche behind a computer, isn't it?

Re:Really?

[Daemonik]

How about this? http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/12/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-settlement/

Bubba Clem could be heard on the full tape saying that if he ever wanted to retire, he simply needed to release the video.

Clem originally claimed that Hogan, whose real name is Terry Gene Bollea, knew that he was being recorded. But after striking a settlement with Hogan, Clem walked that back.

Clem, who has denied being responsible for the tape's leak, has resisted Gawker's efforts to call him as a witness to be questioned about whether Hogan knew he was being filmed.

A lawyer for Clem filed a motion on Friday asking to be eliminated from the case. "Should these statements prove to be differing, and we do not concede that they are, Mr. Clem could be subject to a state prosecution for perjury or a federal false statement prosecution," the motion stated.

His attorney had previously said Clem intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not testify against himself. Clem's request will be considered Monday.

Bubba really REALLY didn't want to be on the witness stand about it, because he'd likely be in jail.

Re:Really?

[Daemonik]

How about, being gay, Mr. Theil not do business with a country that wants gay people dead? Or do you think either supporting these sorts of regime's is okay or that it's okay for gay people to lie about a fundamental show stopper in a business deal? Either way Mr. Theil is an asshole.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

But not those dumb enough to believe the lie. No, like Nigerian letters Libertarianism goes after those with an overblown ego, those who think they are going to be the Aristocrats. But unfortunately, the result for the rest of us is worse than just spam.

Actually a lot of them just don't want to be told how to conduct their personal lives. They want to smoke pot without worrying that it might ruin their career. They want to purchase a bottle of wine on a Sunday. Or they see a federal government that's completely out of control and is about to collapse under its own weight if its growth continues.

Just like many people who want Canadian-style single-payer healthcare wouldn't like 100% pure socialism, many people advocating libertarian policies wouldn't want 100% pure libertarian anarcho-capitalism. What they want is to restore a sense of balance by taking a few steps in that direction. It's just that it's so easy to paint with a broad brush that the reasonable people who understand balance get lumped together with the rabid fans. Thing is, we don't deserve to.

Re:Really?

[monkeyman.kix]

You know what else would be hot? Trump's PUBIC hair

I doubt he has any. He is just using a combover from his ass.

You know it would actually be a comb-under

Re:Really?

[stabiesoft]

So I take it under a democratic prez, the executive branch should be able to shut down fox news? News has changed because no one wants to dive into the boring details of actually running a government. It is part of why drump does so well. He is entertaining, the news loves him for the eyeballs he pulls in. After all how many people stop to watch a train wreck?

Re:Really?

[mvdwege]

Well, it's a lot harder than being an Internet Tough Guy, I can tell you that.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

flout! not flaunt, flout!

Re:Really?

[perryizgr8]

All I have to say is: fuck Gawker. Every person working at that place should be left penniless. I have become a great fan of Peter Thiel.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without Thiel, Hogan probably couldn't have brought the suit. Hogan has some money, but not that much. Now that Gawker has declared bankruptcy, they aren't going to pay out to Hogan at first. He'll probably see only a fraction of that money, if anything.

If a tobacco company did the same thing, people would be screaming blood murder.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

He/she probably is, I know because I'm one myself.

However, in my defence I'd like to point out that I'm 100% benevolent.

Unfortunately many of my ilk are not.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't work out so well for Mr Happy now did it?

Re:Really?

[Mashiki]

Since when is having a double standard something you need to call in the State for to arbitrate? Oh, of course, only when it's the 21st century Earls and Dukes that are the target.

As I said in my first post, the gullible.

"I'm only in favor of the law, when it supports my point of view."

Re:Really?

[tlhIngan]

They could say whatever they wanted about whomever because they were a $100 million conglomerate, immune to any consequence. Well, there's always a bigger fish and finally, they pissed off someone with the cash to beat them.

Actually, it was worse. They acted like they were above the law.

Media outlets are not, and they have to "stay in line" like the rest of us. When the judge gave a court order saying Gawker had to take the sex tape video offline, they not only refused to do so, but said they were purposefully disobeying it.

So Gawker themselves held themselves to be above the law - and disrespecting the judge to boot.

They not only acted like they were untouchable, they behaved like they were untouchable, because they were. Then a billionaire comes along and basically finds a valid case to try to smack some sense into them.

And if you look at the Gawker sites, the posts that try to defend Gawker are more... amusing, for how slanted they are. It was also telling they omitted the fact that they deliberately defied a court order in their painting themselves as angels.

The fact that it takes a billionaire to take down Gawker should be telling enough - they do wrong, and they not only don't care, but they thumb their noses at any attempt at justice, and act with impunity.

Oh, and every other media outlet, when they got the court order, took down the video.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm only in favor of the law, when it supports my point of view."

A fine summary of the problem people have with libertarians, as demonstrated by this case.

I wonder how many libertarians defended the law telling that bakery to bake that damn cake. Hey, it's the LAW, right?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your short reply would only convince the gullible. Seems like you're talking about yourself here.

Re:Really?

[Darinbob]

It also points out there is no equality in justice. You need to be rich to get full access to the legal system. Whether it's a rich person with a grudge or a rich person taking on a righteous case or a rich person providing charity. Meanwhile we have citizens in jail only because they can't afford their court fees.

Re: Really?

[Ol Olsoc]

He didn't, fuckwit. They crushed themselves. Kill yourself.

Lookie who escaped from tumblr!

No, you're thinking 4chan, a tumblr-kin would have invoked feminism.

TRIGGERD!!!!!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

You do have the ability to help fund lawyers going after a media outlet you don't like.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

If all they had done was piss Thiel off, they'd still be around. However, they compounded that bit of jackassery (outing a gay man isn't exactly cool, and it goes very much against their "progressive" image) with posting revenge porn - which they said was terrible when female celebrities were affected by it, but it's okay if it's a man, according to them. I really don't think this is a dangerous precedent, as anyone who doesn't fuck up this badly needn't be worried.

Re:Really?

[HiThere]

Since you capitalized "Libertarianism", I assume you are referring to the political party, and thus I agree with you. He is clearly not a libertarian, no matter what he claims, and anyone who believes he is disagrees with me totally about what the word means.

Nobody who depends on the monopoly power of patents, copyrights, etc. can reasonably claim to be a libertarian. There aren't fine graded definitions in this area, so I don't know how to classify someone who believes on short term patents, copyrights, etc., but even they aren't libertarian, though one could call their views more reasonable than those that fit the definition of libertarian.

Re:Really?

[Hognoxious]

Hint: their political philosophy revolves around using state power only when absolutely necessary.

You appear to have mistyped "only when it's in their best interests, everyone else be damned".

Re:Really?

[Hognoxious]

So Gawker didn't flaunt the law

Why would anyone display a law in an ostentatious manner?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he would actually be more happy by changing campaign finance laws. The Citizens United ruling was clearly and obviously one of the most devastating ruling to ever come out of the Supreme Court. The unlimited money since then has contributed to polarization and legalized bribery throughout the government.

Most of the problems with our politicians today are because of campaign finance. They spend the majority of their time raising money either for the party or for their own campaigns. As a result it is no wonder they favor large donors who actually give them time to do their jobs.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or that there are some 17,000 chemicals that can be used as food additives that do not have to be specified on the ingredients list, and many of these are actually addictive.

Got a link for that one? Sounds interesting.

Or that the studies showing GMO crops to be safe were short-term studied sponsored by the biotech firms, while the long-term studies showed all kinds of tumor growths and early deaths (and if you think about it - the main purpose of genetic engineering is so that the crop can tolerate being sprayed with poison, or produce its own - so this will remain true until/unless the tech is put to some other use).

That's something I wish the anti-GMO movement would emphasize more: "it's not that we're irrationally hysterical about the minor difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering, it's that having a 'this food is GMO' label is an excellent proxy for 'this food has tons of RoundUp sprayed all over it!'"

The Bt toxin produced by GMO corn (itself - not sprayed on) is every bit as bad. It's an insecticide. It works by chemically punching holes in the digestive tract of insects that try to feed on it. When humans eat this corn over time, it has a similar effect. This produces an autoimmune condition known as "leaky gut syndrome".

Basically, any protein you eat in your diet is normally broken down into its constituent amino acids before being absorbed by the body. The body does not deal well with whole proteins entering the bloodstream. It provokes an immune response, because microorganisms are the other major instance of whole proteins in the bloodstream (as well as things like snake venom). When that happens it can cause all kinds of health problems ranging from annoying to severe. There are a lot of people chronically ill from this.

There are a great many processed foods that have corn ingredients, corn syrup, corn oil, etc. It's incredibly difficult to avoid unless you can afford to eat all organic foods, because "organic" requires non-GMO. Soy is something like 80% GMO and also difficult to avoid, and even non-GMO soy isn't good for you unless it's been fermented (i.e. soy sauce, miso soup.

The real kicker is that the use of GMO crops does not increase farmers' yields. That was one of the main sales pitches behind them - "feed the world" etc. What it is doing is creating strains of glyphosate (Round-up) resistant weeds and insecticide-resistent pests, not unlike what the overuse of antibiotics has done to create things like MRSA.

One last thing: glyphosate kills plants by starving them of minerals they would normally get from the soil. Plants generally only need three minerals to thrive - any more they have is absorbed along with those three. Humans need around 60 minerals to thrive. Combine that with the way our soils have been depleted (because we no longer use wood for fuel and no longer add the ash back to the soil like we did for thousands of years) and you have a situation where even a person who eats lots of veggies is nutritionally deficient without supplementation. Our food supply is seriously screwed up because powerful monied interests profit that way.

Re:Really?

[david_thornley]

Heck, misplace a pair of pants and you can be sued for more money than would exist in the known Universe.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's he supposed to do? Send Vito and Gino to get Denton to try on a pair of cement shoes and have a snooze with the fishes? Besides there's little of the power of the State here. You know what juries are right? They're the ones that decided on the case. The State was just an arbiter here. Nothing a libertarian would complain about.

And since we're taking cheap shots: if religion is the opium of the masses, socialism is the heroin.

Re:Really?

[david_thornley]

The real kicker is that the use of GMO crops does not increase farmers' yields.

And, among the really dubious claims, we have a definite loser. Farmers are very conscious of their budgets and what they're paying for. If GMO seeds don't increase their yield, why do we have farmers buying it? Why are some so interested in getting the benefits without paying Monsanto?

Re:Really?

[drsmithy]

Who is *really* the victim of this?

Everyone.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-oh, based on how you were modded, the progressives didn't like what you said - which is entirely spot on.

Re:Really?

[quax]

This matters because it says something about Peter Thiel's judgement.

Never seen a leading VC guy self destruct his reputation more swiftly and thoroughly.

Re:Really?

[ThatsMyNick]

I already told you, your news source is using a hacked source. Source that Petra News Agency was hacked http://www.petra.gov.jo/Public... and http://english.alarabiya.net/e...

Why do I have to dig up anything on koch? Seems irrelevant here. You and your silly popcorn.

Re:Really?

[Mashiki]

I wonder how many libertarians defended the law telling that bakery to bake that damn cake. Hey, it's the LAW, right?

Close to zero. The bakery being forced to bake that damn cake was a clear first amendment violation.

Re:Really?

[Coren22]

It is kind of moot though, as publishing someone's sex tape without their permission is illegal even if they were the one who setup the camera.

Re:Really?

[Coren22]

Isn't that something the Hulk said?

Re:Really?

[Coren22]

Except that it isn't the law. The ultimate law of the land is the constitution. The baker's religion says that homosexuality is wrong, and a sin, so why should they be forced to bake a cake for a homosexual couple? What law states that they have to give up their religion in order to run a bakery?

Re:Really?

[Daemonik]

If it were wholly illegal, they would have had a criminal trial instead of a civil one. Publishing the tape was not a crime, in and of itself, due to it's newsworthiness.

Re:Really?

[Coren22]

Do you have actual information to support this? I would be interested in what specific initiatives he supports.

Re:Really?

[Coren22]

http://www.cybercivilrights.or...

It is illegal to post sex tapes of someone without their permission, this is why porn companies get model releases.

Re:Really?

[Daemonik]

You do not need a model release for news articles. Try again.

Also, you don't seem to be aware that Bollea tried and lost in Federal court to have the tape taken down, where the judge found it was protected by the First Amendment. That's when he went to Florida's state court.

Bollea will likely lose on appeal. The judge in this case is notorious for having her decisions reversed. The only reason Gawker has to file bankruptcy is because the judge refuses to hold off on payment of the award until the appeal goes through.

Re:Really?

[Coren22]

So you mean first amendment like the J Law pictures that were posted to porn sites?

https://www.flsenate.gov/Sessi...

47 (2) As used in this section, the term:
48 (a) “Image” includes, but is not limited to, any
49 photograph, picture, motion picture, film, video, or
50 representation.

53 (c) “Sexually cyberharass” means to publish a sexually
54 explicit image of a person that contains or conveys the personal
55 identification information of the depicted person to an Internet
56 website without the depicted person’s consent, for no legitimate
57 purpose, with the intent of causing substantial emotional
58 distress to the depicted person.

70 (4)(a) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a
71 warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe
72 has violated this section.

99 (7) A violation of this section is committed within this
100 state if any conduct that is an element of the offense, or any
101 harm to the depicted person resulting from the offense, occurs
102 within this state.

So, how exactly does this not fall under the criminal statute of Florida? I see nowhere in that law that has an exception in the case of the press publishing a video or photo of someone without their permission because it is "news".

62 (3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a person who
63 willfully and maliciously sexually cyberharasses another person
64 commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as
65 provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
66 (b) A person who has one prior conviction for sexual
67 cyberharassment and who commits a second or subsequent sexual
68 cyberharassment commits a felony of the third degree, punishable
69 as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

76 (5) An aggrieved person may initiate a civil action against
77 a person who violates this section to obtain all appropriate
78 relief in order to prevent or remedy a violation of this
79 section, including the following:
80 (a) Injunctive relief.
81 (b) Monetary damages to include $5,000 or actual damages
82 incurred as a result of a violation of this section, whichever
83 is greater.
84 (c) Reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Good luck on that appeal...oh, and I would avoid visiting Florida for a while if I were the reporter or editor, as this was pretty willful.

Re:Really?

[Rakarra]

No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.

Liberatarians are not Anarchists. The Gawker lawsuits are fully within Libertarian ideals which is that IP law is one of the very, very few areas that the government has involved itself in, that the government actually has legitimate purview over.

Re:Really?

[Rakarra]

I think he would actually be more happy by changing campaign finance laws. The Citizens United ruling was clearly and obviously one of the most devastating ruling to ever come out of the Supreme Court. The unlimited money since then has contributed to polarization and legalized bribery throughout the government.

I can't disagree with that, but I have to think that Citizen's United is the ruling that most closely hews to the Constitution. If it costs a shit-ton of money to spread your message nationwide, then limiting money is limiting speech.

Re:Really?

[Rakarra]

Nobody who depends on the monopoly power of patents, copyrights, etc. can reasonably claim to be a libertarian.

Under what definition of libertarianism, though? The Constitution clearly gives the power to create and enforce copyright law to Congress. Or could this be a more Anti-Federalist libertarian ideal of "the Constitution itself as it was written gives the federal government too much power, so it should be amended to fix that?"

Re:Really?

[Rakarra]

the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems

You know, it's not like they had to try very hard. Gawker reps publicly stated they don't have to follow court orders. This wasn't something super-secretive that someone had to dig up.

and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like

Gawker destroyed themselves. They were really really fucking idiotic.

Re:Really?

[HiThere]

Under any definition that appears reasonable to me, being libertarian would preclude using force to implement or ensure a monopoly of any sort. No mention of government is required, but it should be understood as included as a mechanism of force.

P.S.: No, I'm not really a libertarian. I was for awhile, I was even a Libertarian for awhile. But I wasn't able to evolve a logically consistent stance that fit within the rubric, as I understand it.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bt toxin produced by GMO corn (itself - not sprayed on) is every bit as bad. It's an insecticide. It works by chemically punching holes in the digestive tract of insects that try to feed on it. When humans eat this corn over time, it has a similar effect. This produces an autoimmune condition known as "leaky gut syndrome".

So-called "leaky gut syndrome" is complete, utter bollocks.

- T

So nothing to do with Trump

[Rockoon]

..nothing to do with Trump, but hey it might fool people into not liking Trump if we say it is...

Re:So nothing to do with Trump

[TroII]

Nothing to do with Peter Thiel, either, but accuracy isn't a quality I've come to expect from Gawker headlines.

Re:So nothing to do with Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is about the same level too, source: this "story".

Re:So nothing to do with Trump

[Opportunist]

It's about the hair. We all know since the Simpsons that a hair transplant that is evil can turn the most benign idiot into a scheming mastermind.

What more proof do you need?

Re:So nothing to do with Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprise, surprise. Rockoon is Trump supporter. Color me shocked. SHOCKED I SAY!

Re:So nothing to do with Trump

[Rockoon]

Surprise, surprise. Rockoon is Trump supporter. Color me shocked. SHOCKED I SAY!

Never was. Never will be.

But you still seem to have a problem with veracity and accuracy. Not surprising from someone that produces logical fallacy after logical fallacy instead of sound reasoning.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even about winning or being right anymore, it's about making sure they sell for peanuts in the auction, just to make sure the place burns down for good. Gawker deserves it.

Trump hates us and wants us to die

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the way of his kind.

Re: Trump hates us and wants us to die

[Anonymous Coward]

It's how all balding white men be.

Re:Trump hates us and wants us to die

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if that is what it takes to #MAGA, adios muchacho! Don't let the WALL hit you in the ass on the way out.

Re:Trump hates us and wants us to die

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly right. So go ahead and die bitch.

This story is really grasping

[Anonymous Coward]

So the lawyer that beat gawker in the Hulk Hogan lawsuit gets hired by another company that wants to sue gawker...

Peter Thief?

[Black Parrot]

IANAL, but if I were I think I'd change my name to something harder to misread.

Re:Peter Thief?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I don't know where you live but here in America, Peter is slang for penis. I would most definitely change my name if I were named Peter, much less Thief!

Re:Peter Thief?

[Whibla]

You're absolutely right.

(Credit where it's due - thanks "The IT Crowd")

Based on his love of litigation, I suggest he change his last name to File instead...

Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody really cares about the brand of fake hair piece Trump is using? I don't think anybody on either side of the love/hate spectrum range cares one bit.

Gawker?

[dohzer]

Why doesn't Assange just leak who manufactures Trump's the hair-hats? Or does he only leak about Hillary and/or relevant topics?

Re:Gawker?

[Opportunist]

Because, in all fairness, it doesn't really matter. I may joke all day about the evil hairpiece and how it controls its wearer, but in the end, what does it matter? So he's under the rug. He's a guy and he wants to look young. If anything, it makes him human. What aging guy cannot relate?

With Hillary, I have the opposite problem.

Wait, that was made?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought he shaved the asshole of a tufted rainbow-butt monkey and put it on his head?

Fuck the skull of Gawker

[Anonymous Coward]

Headline kinda makes it sound that Thiel is involved with the defamation notice even though technically Harder is doing it on behalf of his client, Ivari. And also it makes it sound like the lawyer personally wants to silence "news" about Trump's hair, when he obviously is representing a client's interest and doubtfully gives a fuck on personal level either way. Is Thiel paying the legal fees for Ivari in a potential defamation lawsuit against Gawker?. Maybe, but the articles in question don't establish that as a fact.

Also about that "news":
http://gawker.com/this-is-pulitzer-worthy-i-say-that-in-all-sincerity-1778448626
"Gawker was unable to independently confirm Trump’s connection to Ivari; both Trump and Ivari did not respond to multiple and persistent requests for comment. "

Oh that Gawker.

News for Nerds?

[sdguero]

This is the kind of stuff that belongs on tmz. The saddest part (other than it making it to /.) is that a bunch of other renowned journalists praised the original article about trump's hairpiece.

"drawing praise from staffers at the Times, the Wall Street Journal, and The Atlantic; and at least three winners of the Pulitzer Prize."

Ugh.

Re:News for Nerds?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Yeah, this is even worse than the media trying to make bush admit he did cocaine, and giving obama the pass since he mentioned in his book he did cocaine.

So, Hillary, wig or no wig? No one wants to know....

Re:News for Nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

TMZ? I'd pay to be Kelly Berning's chair...Mmmmm

Re:News for Nerds?

[Black Parrot]

This is an election year. The media has to find something to talk about other than public policy.

Re:News for Nerds?

[ragahast]

When the very wealthy bankroll third-party lawsuits against media outlets they personally dislike, it's "news." When those wealthy individuals are high profile tech VCs, it's "for nerds."

Re:News for Nerds?

[Darinbob]

No one would care about Trump's hair, except that Trump is so incredibly sensitive about it. His defensiveness about the hair causes people to pay more attention to the hair. No one makes fun of Hillary's pantsuits much because she's doesn't become visibly angry when people make fun of her pantsuits. Same with Trump's hands - almost no one would have paid any attention to his hands if he hadn't gone and made a big deal about it when someone reported on it in Spy. It clearly pushed a button with Trump and so human nature means people keep trying to push that button.

Re:News for Nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know who cares about Trump's hair? Comedians do. It's great fun and even Trump's supporters laugh. Hillary's pant suits aren't funny. Nothing about her is even slightly amusing.

Re:News for Nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you vote on the stories in the firehouse, right?

Re:News for Nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I dunno. The fact she's running for president on the Dem ticket is certainly a joke.

Re:News for Nerds?

[dave420]

Did you read the article?

Re:News for Nerds?

[mrchaotica]

But not a funny one.

Re:News for Nerds?

[Theaetetus]

This is the kind of stuff that belongs on tmz. The saddest part (other than it making it to /.) is that a bunch of other renowned journalists praised the original article about trump's hairpiece.

The article discusses alleged copyright infringement for publishing a threatening cease and desist letter online. That seems right up the alley for yro.slashdot.org.

Re:News for Nerds?

[Rakarra]

You know who cares about Trump's hair? Comedians do. It's great fun and even Trump's supporters laugh. Hillary's pant suits aren't funny. Nothing about her is even slightly amusing.

I don't know, I like Kate McKinnon's impressions of Hillary as a woman one comment away from a total breakdown.

If we silence reporting on Trump

[fustakrakich]

Will he disappear?

Let's try, and see what happens...

Media's missed opportunity

[PopeRatzo]

The original story that set off this latest Peter Thiel tantrum is one of the best actual pieces of journalism about Trump that's been in any media outlet, anywhere. Even harsh critics of Gawker singled it out as an excellent story.

Here's what one Pulitzer-winner (Dan Fagin) said about the story:

Anyone who thinks investigative reporting is dead should pay attention as Gawker blows the 'lid' off Hairpiecegate.

David Simon, the former prize-winning journalist and screenwriter of "The Wire" said of the Gawker story:

For real, the finest work Gawker has done. Which is at once both a genuine compliment and an easy straight-line.

He also said that if the US press had done work this good on the question of WMDs and the run-up the Iraq War, that war never would have happened.

You have to admit that the story itself, meticulously sourced and thoroughly researched, is pretty impressive.

http://gawker.com/is-donald-tr...

It draws a very interesting picture of the man, Donald Trump.

And Mr Harder's lawsuit? It's pretty funny reading too, since he tries to assert that his legal demand for retraction and apology is covered by copyright law.

I realize that a lot of the ACs here hate Gawker and their properties because they were harsh on #gamergate and MRAs (who even named their now-defunct gamergate forum, "Kotaku in Action" to prove that they're not mad, they're actually laughing), but I recommend reading the stories for yourself and forming your own opinion.

http://gawker.com/now-peter-th...

Re: Media's missed opportunity

[topham]

I don't think people understand the criticisms in the compliments gawker has been given.

This is the media telling Gawker if they out that kind of effort into real news they wouldn't be a farce. This is them giving Gawker a bow, right before they piss on its grave. You wait and see, the people currently working for Gawker are going to be blacklisted into Walmart greeters when this all wraps up.

Re: Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

As if ANY of this has any relevance to anything, whatsoever. We're all gonna end up as dessiccated meat dust on a charred lifeless rock in space. The human race is a doomed species. The universe is a harsh mistress.

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing wrong with people that fight for equal rights and dignity. Feminists, MRAs, egalitarians, they all are trying to make a better world. Why paint them with such a broad brush?

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Because pretty much every MRA organisation is actually an anti-feminist organisation?

Can you tell me what places like A Voice for Men have ever done to improve the lot of men, instead of trying to push down women?

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahaha, that's hilarious.
It speaks to the sad state of journalism that this is considered to be good investigative reporting.
First of all, they have absolutely 0 sourced proof that Trump uses this. All they have is speculation and an anonymous person who swears it's true.
The rest of the article is just about the company that supposedly did it, and gawkers opinion that Trumps hair looks like it might be the same.
For all I know Trump is wearing this weave, but this article has 0 convincing proof.
Gawker as always is no better than the daily mail or other POS tabloid publications.
They should all be wiped out.

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[PopeRatzo]

Hahahahaha, that's hilarious.

See what I mean? They're not mad, they're actually laughing.

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

one of the best actual pieces of journalism about Trump that's been in any media outlet, anywhere

tl;dr post descends into surreal self-parody in the the first sentence. If comments about his hair is the best journalism that can be done, then he is impossible to report on, or journalists are incompetent.

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Because pretty much every MRA organisation is actually an anti-feminist organisation?

This is a bullshit comment. The MRA movement originated from inequality issues on things like child custody, gender bias in the legal system, gender bias in healthcare spending, gender bias in incarceration, gender bias in homelessness, etc. These are legitimate, demonstrably true concerns.

If you want to brush off the MRA movement as being anti-feminist then you're completely missing the point or being disingenuous. Way to stifle public discourse on policy bigotry. Perhaps it's people like you who are the real problem here.

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[PopeRatzo]

then he is impossible to report on

He is impossible to report on, like most TV celebs. It's all perception of people who don't really care about anything but style.

Fortunately, his poll numbers are dropping precipitously, which shows that the people who have avoided all the horse-race crap are finally starting to get engaged.

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[NetNed]

Ah, yeahhh, ok then...............

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people, and least those I know, seem not to like Gawker because it's a sort of digital gossip magazine. The stories are cheap and dirty, the people come off as the same.
I'm sure they probably come up with a quality article now and then, but they have a sullied reputation. I think they even ran a porn site for a while.

Re:Media's missed opportunity

[PopeRatzo]

Sorry, but when George W. Bush was ginning up the Iraq War with talk about WMDs, he was not talking about 30 year old canisters of mustard gas.

Here is a transcript of his speech from 2002 when he pointedly says that we should not "wait for a mushroom cloud" before invading Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/AL...

And a month earlier, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said this:

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

So you can point to all the op-ed pieces you want, but there it is in GWB's own goddamn words. Also, remember "aluminum tubes"? "Yellow cake uranium"?

Re: Media's missed opportunity

[SlimBad]

That was surprisingly a good and well researched read (didn't expect something like that from Gawker tbh). Ivari comes off as a really shady individual.

Re: Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but you didn't answer my question. I assume this is because you know AVFM has done literally nothing to try to resolve any of those issues and instead decided to attack me personally for a bunch of things I didn't say.

Par for the course, really.

Re: Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Right, but you didn't answer my question. I assume this is because you know AVFM has done literally nothing to try to resolve any of those issues and instead decided to attack me personally for a bunch of things I didn't say.

>>Par for the course, really.

What's par for the course are people like yourself trying to dismiss the issues an entire *class* of people have because a member of that class happens to behave in ways you find distasteful. Could you be more of a bigot? You sound like a racist defending black segregation on account of uppity blacks.

Re: Media's missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll note that I actually agreed that these are real issues, but also pointed out that MRA organisations like AVFM don't actually work on any of them, they just yell at people on the internet for either not taking them seriously or being women. Instead of answering that point, you yelled at me on the internet for not taking you seriously, when I clearly was.

My mistake.

NO CLICKS FOR GAWKER

[Anonymous Coward]

http://archive.is/1UpV4
http://archive.is/AKiz5

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[PopeRatzo]

Does anybody really cares about the brand of fake hair piece Trump is using?

It does say something about his judgement that he wears that thing in public and thinks it looks OK. I mean, there are expensive rugs that look really good and you can't tell. If dude is so rich and cares so much about his appearance, why would he go out looking like a troll doll with radiation poisoning? I mean, Charles Nelson-Reilly had a better hairpiece than The Donald. On the other hand, if Trump does NOT really care about his appearance, then why spend all the time and energy and expense to cover up the fact that he's bald?

Here's a great American president who didn't spend $60k on a bad weave:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Not only was he such a bad-ass that he kicked Hitler's ass, but he led this country into an era when we actually became great, and did not give one single fuck about the fact that he was losing his hair. He was like the presidential version of Dwayne Johnson. And let me tell you, 63% of American women have not said they will never vote for Dwayne Johnson the way they have about Trump. Hell, 63% of American men would probably give Dwayne Johnson an enthusiastic reach-around if he asked right now. That's how cool and manly bald-ass Dwayne Johnson is, like Ike.

Re: Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound exactly like a white supremacist ranting about how Obama is a nigger.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[ShanghaiBill]

Here's a great American president who didn't spend $60k on a bad weave:

That was before TV. There is no way a baldie like Ike would get elected today. Since TV became mainstream, the only bald president was Gerald Ford, and he was appointed, not elected.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. Does anyone care about Clinton's lousy plastic surgery?

Botox, Peels & More! Hillary Clinton Is A Plastic Prez Wannabe, Top Docs Declare

hair

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a woman who had thin hair running for president? And then she gets lambasted for her hair? the PC world would erupt.

Re:hair

[Anonymous Coward]

And nobody would vote for her, because we're all judgemental garbage.

Re:hair

[Anonymous Coward]

yet judging a man for his hair is a-ok?

Re:hair

[Anonymous Coward]

Whiney old man. You're disgusting.

Re:hair

[Overzeetop]

We're judging the man for the stock in his self worth he places in his hair, and the poor choice to do what he does with his hair. It reflects on his personality, his motivations, and - yes - his judgement.

Obama gets a lot of shit for owning a closet full of the same suit. How would you have the PotUS spend his time - dealing with his hair and wardrobe, or actively engaging in world and US politics? Every man (or woman) only has 24 hours in a day; how they use it matters.

Re:hair

[Anonymous Coward]

"Obama gets a lot of shit for owning a closet full of the same suit"

He can't get that much shit for it because this is literally the first time I've ever heard it. I'm not the most in tune person with pop culture but I'm not completely clueless and if he was getting a lot of shit for it, I'd imagine I'd have heard about it at least once. And now thinking about and trying to picture him in various speeches, I'm not sure if it's a true that all of them are the same.

Re:hair

[Anonymous Coward]

our society mostly accepts male pattern baldness. but women with alopecia are treated as if they have a contagious disease.

I'm going to lose so much sleep...

[istartedi]

I'm going to lose so much sleep worrying about trumps hair. It's the worst thing since Stalin's and Hitler's moustaches, which we all know were the real problem. Just look at what Gorbachev's red blotch did to the USSR. That's why I'm voting for Hillary. No obvious defect on her face or body to make fun of. Just the pant suits. I'm thinking that polyester can only do so much damage. /sarc.

Zeus's beard

[cfalcon]

The best they have on Trump is that he may secretly be somewhat bald? Is there any Trump story not newsworthy these days? Soon CNN will find out that he hangs the toilet paper facing in, not out, or something.

This election, holy moly.

Re:Zeus's beard

[Anonymous Coward]

The best they have on Trump is that he may secretly be somewhat bald?

Secretly?! Seriously?

Re:Zeus's beard

[new_01]

that he hangs the toilet paper facing in, not out, or something.

Sonofabitch. I knew it! Do you have proof of this?

Re:Zeus's beard

[Falos]

If I find out that he doesn't hang his toilet paper Over, it will be the final tally marking him irredeemably, irreversibly insane.

Re:Zeus's beard

[Anonymous Coward]

secretly?

are you nuts?

that's like saying the Whitehouse is secretly in Washington DC

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, but we care about the blatant misinterpretation of copyright law used to bankrupt and silence a media company by some rich person for personal reasons.

lol

[Smiddi]

This story makes me laugh, hair hair hair.

Re: lol

[jsh1972]

If people keep making fun of his hair there's gonna be hell toupee!

Some things just beg ridicule!

[EzInKy]

Trump's hair is one of those things.

The Bi-Partisan approach

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing to consider is Mr Trumps small, soft baby like hands wrapped around Hillary's massive penis.

America get's fucked no matter who wins. This is American democracy at it's finest.

Re:The Bi-Partisan approach

[Anonymous Coward]

> The thing to consider is Mr Trumps small, soft baby like hands wrapped around Hillary's massive penis.

Woah. *That* tickled my imagination. Could you cook something up in 3D? Preferrably with free tools, like Blender?

It would raise my interest in politics. Instantly!

Reminds me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alison Stokes unavailable for comment...

Gawker was unable to confirm - so typical

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gawker was unable to confirm" is nothing less or more one can expect from this this shit rag called Gawker.
They invent shit and then publishes it as a "true story" with a "?" somewhere.

Fuck Gawker and everyone who worked there. You idiots killed the already dead journalism once more.

Hidden Technology

[Archfeld]

I have it on good authority that Trumps' hair is actually a Bio-Engineered organism that acts both as a self defense system and as a satellite reception system allowing him to send and receive signals from low earth orbit satellites. In the event of a physical attack the hair piece will intercept and deflect bullets up to .50.
It is an unverified rumor that Trump will name his hair piece as his running mate and potential Vice President.

Re:Hidden Technology

[Shakrai]

Ever wonder what's under Trump's hair?

Re:Hidden Technology

[Z80a]

But does it run Linux?

Re:Hidden Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

But does it run Linux?

Since Trump wears a suit all the time, he must be running Windows.

Re:Hidden Technology

[MrKaos]

Don't bring former Prime Minister Abbot into this. He is a version of evil you don't want to contend with.

Re:Hidden Technology

[MrKaos]

It is an unverified rumor that Trump will name his hair piece as his running mate and potential Vice President.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Trump has wanted hair like that ever since he was a little girl.

Re:Hidden Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

I have it on good authority that Trump is a shape-changing lizard.

Re:Hidden Technology

[T.E.D.]

I have it on good authority that Trumps' hair is actually a Bio-Engineered organism that acts both as a self defense system and as a satellite reception system

The way I heard it, its actually a Russian polonium injection system, held at bay only by Trump making positive statements about Putin and saying or doing only things that help out Russian foreign policy. In short, Trump is being held hostage by his hair.

Re:Hidden Technology

[NetNed]

Sounds similar to Hillary Clinton's snizz.

Re:Hidden Technology

[Archfeld]

GO GO GADGET HAIR ;)

Re:Hidden Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, this is the Year of Linux on the Tupee after all.

Edit: the captcha is scary. I got "insipid" for this one.

Re:Hidden Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a fucking idiot

no one in Australian politics is even remotely as evil as the best US politics has to offer

Re:Hidden Technology

[MrKaos]

no one in Australian politics is even remotely as evil as the best US politics has to offer

BWAAAAhahahahahahahahaha - shows how fucking clueless you are- bwaaaahahahahahaha!

Go back to stumbling aimlessly around wondering what is going on

$60,000 ?

[fahrbot-bot]

That money would have been way better spent training a ferret to sit on Donald's head.

Re:$60,000 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or to burrow into it and eat his brain

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Foolish human.

We are not a cheap weave, we are a sentient hive-mind of extraterrestrial scalp parasites, seeking to gain control of your planet's most powerful nation.

Our host body, the one you call "trump", is only marginally compatible with our physiology, and the colony attached to that host is struggling. As a consequence, the host has difficulty understanding the compulsions of the rest of the hive, which is why the host exhibits such impulsive and irrational behavior.

We apologize for the poor health of that colony. Despite every effort to improve its health, the lack of quality brainwaves from the host is an intractible condition. While initial testing showed it would be easy to control, and its financial capabilities useful to our ascendance, it was, and still is, an early attempt at human occupation and control. Our techniques and host selection processes have greatly improved since then. The colony growing on the "venture capitalist" is much healther. Far more compatible.

We hope you understand why it is that we must silence any media attention to the true source of the trump-host's follicular origins. The Thiel host has been very successful in silencing unwanted media attention to our activities.

Berlusconi? Is there a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Berlusconi, too, had a hair transplant (he went around boasting about it: he's Italian, after all :-)

Is there a correlation between expensive hair transplant and autocratic megalomaniac asshole?

(BTW, Boris Johnson's hairdo is eerily similar to Trump's: same stylist?

Company caught on video

[Tablizer]

...making a delivery.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Okian Warrior]

Not only was he such a bad-ass that he kicked Hitler's ass, but he led this country into an era when we actually became great, and did not give one single fuck about the fact that he was losing his hair.

To be fair, it was easy to become great when the manufacturing centers of Europe, the UK, Japan, and parts of China had been totally destroyed.

Hair? Who cares about hair!?

[garry_g]

Why care about his ridiculous hair, when the person itself is so much more ridiculous! (except if the hair was controlling the person ...)

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. Does anyone care about Clinton's lousy plastic surgery?

Botox, Peels & More! Hillary Clinton Is A Plastic Prez Wannabe, Top Docs Declare

Yeah I don't understand why that nasty old harpy would bother getting plastic surgery. I also don't understand why fat chicks spend lots of money getting their hair and nails done. You can't polish a turd, no matter how much turd-polish you use. Nor can you pick up a turd from the clean end. Yet apparently the turd-polish companies are doing well for themselves. I think this is one reason why, if these UFOs are really aliens, it's no wonder they don't make open contact.

Nobody wants to admit it, but if you REALLY want to have a woman president, find a candidate who's attractive and doesn't come off like a complete bitch. Not having a history of criminal acts that the rest of us would never get away with, well that wouldn't hurt either.

Re: Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound exactly like a white supremacist ranting about how Obama is a nigger.

Did he stop being a nigger? What did he do, contact Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon? Did the teleprompter tell him it would be a good idea?

I have become bait

[Anonymous Coward]

the destroyer of websites!

All I can say

[DrXym]

Wherever he got his hair, It looks terrible. It doesn't even look like a bad hairpiece. It's so weird it's not even possible to see where it actually enters / leaves the head. It's like an elaborately stacked and woven combover which is hair sprayed and fixed into position somehow.

Of course if he weren't such a narcissist he wouldn't have resorted to such ludicrous measures in the first place.

Watching the watchmen

[Anonymous Coward]

Gawker links to gawker posts reporting on gawker, conflating a man they have a long history with, a lawyer who works for him, some sort of hair wizard and Donald trump.

I'm pretty sure we can disregard the whole thing.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

If dude is so rich and cares so much about his appearance, why would he go out looking like a troll doll with radiation poisoning?

Because he cares about a striking appearance. A politician needs recognition above all. Slightly odd appearance help with that; I am european and not part of your election - still I know what Trump looks like. Can't say that for any of the other candidates from either party - they're too bland for the disinterested.

Also, the "radiation poisoned troll doll look" goes well with his troll doll behaviour.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[jandersen]

Nothing to do with the topic, but since we are speaking of Trump, here is another story about why it may not be a good idea to vote for a billionaire celebrity: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

I guess the lesson here

[sabbede]

is that homophobia is bad. Gawker wanted to take Thiel down a peg by revealing his sexuality, the implication being that homosexuality is bad (why else would it hurt him?). Rather appalling considering that the man who owns Gawker is himself gay. Perhaps it would be different if Thiel was a hypocritically anti-gay activist, but no, it was just a private and personal matter.

I don't know if it's right for Thiel to pursue his vendetta, but I can't really blame him.

Re:I guess the lesson here

[yendor]

Gawker has a long and sordid history of outing people left and right while claiming to be a voice for all sorts of activism.
Seems like they believe firmly in "But we are allowed to do this because we are doing it for good"

Gawker is clickbaity gutter crap and Trump seems to be equally vile but I somehow can't dislike Thiel. Gawker almost always picked targets who didn't have the funds to respond. Thiel and Gawker both played the system and Gawker finally lost.

This article makes me feel like slashdot is no longer worth reading. Sad to see but after 16 years the content is gone and the quality with it.

Re:I guess the lesson here

[dave420]

There is another explanation for why outing him would be bad for him: homophobia is bad. He was dealing with entities who are themselves homophobic (despite them being homophobic), and outing him would inform them of his homosexuality.

So no. There is a rational explanation you missed entirely.

Re:I guess the lesson here

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it would be different if Thiel was a hypocritically anti-gay activist, but no, it was just a private and personal matter.

What, like all the advocacy he's done for the Republican party? Working for them is anti-gay activism at its core.

Re:I guess the lesson here

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the editor and journalist on the gay-outing story are gay.

Re:I guess the lesson here

[quax]

The article in question was actually speculating on why, in this day and age, Thiel wouldn't just come out of the closet properly, since his sexual orientation was already an open secret, and nowadays there is hardly a stigma attached to being gay.

Similar to the reporting done on Apple CEO Tim Cook, who then did the right thing and came out high profile and publicly, as to be an inspiration for gay kids everywhere, showing them that they too can shot for the stars.

Then again, I don't think Cook ever was so uncomfortable with his sexual orientation, that he covered it up with homophobia as Thiel allegedly did when he was at Standford.

Re:I guess the lesson here

[sabbede]

I can't parse your wording.

Re:I guess the lesson here

[sabbede]

If I recall, the article was titled "Peter Thiel is totally gay". Not how one begins a thoughtful piece of social criticism.

Furthermore, there is no objective "right thing" when you're talking about something as deeply and intensely personal as one's sexuality. He was under no obligation to be a role model, and has every right to keep his private life private. And if he had trouble coming to terms with his sexuality, then again, that is his business, and his alone.

There was a responsible way for Gawker to write the piece - ask Thiel for an interview on the subject, and if he said no, move on.

Re:I guess the lesson here

[quax]

This is Gawker we are talking about, of course they won't write a sociological dissertation.

Really easy to find the article and to judge the tone for yourself: http://gawker.com/335894/peter...

But I think this paragraph in the beginning, nicely sums it up, this was not so much about Thiel, but why he wouldn't come fully out of the closet:

"Of course he's gay. Why would you mention that?" Here in northern California, where intolerance is the only thing we can't tolerate, even alluding to someone's sexual orientation is suspect. (Even if, like me, you're gay yourself.) Yet as one venture capitalist put it, "The VC industry is headquartered in Menlo Park, not northern California." On Sand Hill Road, like funds like. The clubby ranks of VCs are mostly straight, white and male. They instinctively prefer entrepreneurs who remind them of themselves. At best, it's a wrongheaded sense of caution. At worst, it's prejudice with a handy alibi.

Re:I guess the lesson here

[sabbede]

Thank you, but that doesn't really excuse the high-school-locker-room tone of the title, or naming an unwilling subject. An article on the topic could easily have been written without outing anyone.

Gawker v Thiel

[ThatsNotPudding]

One aimed at discomforting the comfortable by casting light on their actions, attitudes, and undue influence; the other is a money-bagged a-hole that wishes to destroy the very concept of Freedom of Speech.

Having to decide which one is worse? Yeah, really close call.

Re:Gawker v Thiel

[luis_a_espinal]

One aimed at discomforting the comfortable by casting light on their actions, attitudes, and undue influence; the other is a money-bagged a-hole that wishes to destroy the very concept of Freedom of Speech. Having to decide which one is worse? Yeah, really close call.

"One aimed at discomforting the comfortable by casting light on their actions, attitudes, and undue influence" only makes sense when it is in the public interest.

Throwing people's private life details into the public just for shock value, sorry, no. You have to be a nihilistic sociopath to think that's what freedom of speech is all about. Imagine there is this married couple who happens, every other moon to engage in the swinging lifestyle. They have kids and family from whom they do not want that part of their private lives to be known.

And then come something like Gawker and disclose that private fact to the four winds because of something characteristic of said couple, maybe income, maybe social status, but nothing relevant to policy making or general public interest.

That's what Gawker is, or rather, was. I cringe at the notion of a rich and powerful bankrolling suits against Gawker, but I cringe more at people defending the indefensible (which Gawker's actions really were.)

Is it too late ...

[eeyore]

...to assign this story to the "oh, the irony" department?
--
E

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

In argument to your turd polishing claims...I give you coprolite and other polished turd items:
http://www.tellmewhereonearth.com/Web%20Pages/Poop/Poop_Page_1.htm

Hair ?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the reasons to ridicule Little Donny Drumpf, his stupid, ugly, crappy, obviously FAKE hair is the least important.

His ignorance, his lunacy, his evident racial, ethnic, and religious biases and hatred, and those of his fan-base, even more than his own, that he inspires and encourages and emboldens to speak openly attitudes they should be ashamed to hold, they display openly and proudly, are WAY more important than his HAIR.

Awww but I liked the stories about Trump's hair

[Anonymous Coward]

They remind me just how vapid and clueless libtards were when it comes to politics.

Re: Serious question .... why any body cares?

[PopeRatzo]

Obama is a nigger.

Trump 2016

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[trout007]

It actually a very clever strategy similar to an angler fish. You have this distracting thing staring your right in the face so you can't pay attention to what is really going on. It's an old sales tactic that works.

So....

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

So if you report on something a rich person doesn't like, they can sue you into oblivion? That sounds totally fair.

Re:So....

[luis_a_espinal]

So if you report on something a rich person doesn't like, they can sue you into oblivion? That sounds totally fair.

No. You have to out something that rich person has a right to privacy for. People have a right to a private life, and unless something in that person's private life is a matter of public interest (say, a political figure running an anti-gay platform while being gay), then that shit must remain private.

Clinton 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton 2016

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reason it matters is that Trump claims it's real. If it's fake and he's just a liar, then it's worthy of note in a Presidential candidate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do...

Appearance-Based Stereotypes

[Max_W]

I heard that practically all women in the USA make "nose reshaping" surgery, and that a successful man must have the thick hair even after 60 or 70, what means one or another artificial approach.

We hear critique of the outdated ethnic customs of a burqa & circumcision, but isn't it in the same league?

Time to salt the Earth behind them...

[pla]

Thiel has already destroyed Gawker.

Gawker needs to take advantage of what little time they have left to send a message to asshat billionaires who think they can control the Streisand Effect. They have nothing left to lose - ie, time to basically turn into "WikiLeaks for things that piss off Peter Thiel". Billionaire Paparazzi. Make it so he can't take a shit in a public restroom without someone reporting on the time, duration, and characterization of the smell.

Solution ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why we need an automatic "loser pays" law for legal fees and related expenses.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

From my perspective I'm thinking I absolutely must vote for Trump. I mean really, if all the democrats can do is (childishly) make fun of his hair, he must be a great candidate. Now of course if the democrats wanted to grow up at some point and quit with the childish insults, then maybe they could provide a point why he's bad and I'd actually pay attention. It's something the democrats really do have a problem with. Don't we all remember when they were calling the tea party "tea baggers". Yeah, the democrats, the political party for children.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[PopeRatzo]

I mean really, if all the democrats can do is (childishly) make fun of his hair, he must be a great candidate.

Iron-clad logic, right there.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[mrchaotica]

It does say something about his judgement that he wears that thing in public and thinks it looks OK. I mean, there are expensive rugs that look really good and you can't tell. If dude is so rich and cares so much about his appearance, why would he go out looking like a troll doll with radiation poisoning?

Sad to say, considering the hilarity of the hairpiece memes, but I think that's pretty good proof Trump's hair is actually real.

Here's a great American president who didn't spend $60k on a bad weave:

There's lots of guys who can pull off being bald (including two out of five Star Trek captains, for example). Trump, however, is certainly not one of them.

Sigh

[nospam007]

Wow! I wonder what he tells the German newspapers, who reported on his Granddad Drumpf's whorehouse in Klondike, that he opened after having fled from military service in Germany.
I guess that's where Donald got his 'appreciation' of women.

Cease and Desist

[PPH]

Or there will be hell toupee.

More trump spam from /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. No one cares.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[PopeRatzo]

There's lots of guys who can pull off being bald

Dude is 70 years old and a friggin' billionaire. Doesn't it strike you as a little insecure that he's worrying about what he can and cannot "pull off"?

And regarding his hair being "real", I'm not sure that color and texture exist anywhere in nature. However, there's simply too much to unpack regarding Donald's hair. I simply chalk it up to one of those great mysteries.

Why would Trump be upset?

[emaname]

Why would Trump be upset about people reporting about his hair. Hey, it's free publicity. He's getting "air time," isn't he? Any publicity is good publicity.

How is a lawsuit about Trump's hair tech news?

[sbrown123]

If I wanted politics I would go to the thousands of other sites that serve it up. If Slashdot becomes another Digg or Reddit I'll look elsewhere for tech news.

I stand with gawker

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an interesting podcast with a couple of journalist talking about their conflicted feelings about the gawker, but ultimate support.
http://canadalandshow.com/podcast/i-stand-gawker

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, but don't they prefer to use tits rather than bad wigs?

it's a bland old rag

[swschrad]

it's a bland old rag
the orange rug on that hag
like a critter inside does it wave!
it's the symbol of
hack, kick, push and shove
it helps you pick out that knave.

Oh, forever more
Henry, lock up the store
whenever that silly orange comes into view
let the millionnaires
and the billionnaire
stand in the rain, lose the fake tan, growl and stew!

Bigots

[ShieldW0lf]

Gawker in a nutshell:

"Now, I'm not a bigot, and I don't believe in persecuting homosexuals, but before you interact with Peter, I think it's important that you know he's gay, so you can have all the information you need to make the right decision."

They deserve to be Charlie Hebdo'd.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[cyberchondriac]

Where's the evidence it's a hair piece? This sounds like more Gawker BS. I've seen photos of Trump when he was younger, as well current ones, and it sure looks to me like he had a scalp flap done. It's an old technique that predates hair transplants/plugs, where they took a wide strip of your hair from the side, cutting all but one side, and swung it over to the top/front of your head, like a flap. The procedure had issues though, such a bulge at the point of the pivot, and that the hair didn't grow in a natural direction, and it could leave a slight bald spot on the side of the head. All of these describe Trump's head pretty well. Scalp flaps are no longer performed because of these issues, including the worst one where the whole flap of hair would sometimes die.
The dude is a billionaire, why would he buy and wear a cheap rug, when he's not known to be miserly or cheap, but extravagant and narcissistic? There are rugs out there that look fairly convincing, look at Bill Shatner or Burt Reynolds, for example, and they don't have half his wealth. I think Trump's own pride prevented him from getting a toup, so he resorted to surgery instead, early on. So, when he says it's his own real hair, he can say that without lying, technically.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[PopeRatzo]

scalp flap

That's his Secret Service nickname.

In her book, Trump's second wife talks about a failed scalp flap procedure that he had done, causing him to fly into a rapey rage. But this certainly looks like a weave:

http://www.eonline.com/eol_ima...

Either way, it's one of the Eight Great Mysteries of the Modern World.

Re:Serious question .... why any body cares?

[Rakarra]

It does say something about his judgement that he wears that thing in public and thinks it looks OK. I mean, there are expensive rugs that look really good and you can't tell.

I really miss the Shatner Turbo 2000. There are many pictures available at the William Shatner School of Toupological Studies (found at shatnerstoupee.blogspot.com), and on rare occasions they will convene a full sitting of their Grand Toupular Assembly (GTA) to analyze a particular hairpiece, but my favorite was his Wrath of Khan hairpiece. Magnificent.