Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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:
David Simon, the former prize-winning journalist and screenwriter of "The Wire" said of the Gawker story:
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...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
News Flash: Rich people already have more rights than you.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
As I said, the gullible. QED.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
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.
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.
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.