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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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!

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...

Peter Thief?

[Black Parrot]

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

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?

[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: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.

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: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: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.