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.
This matters? WTH?
With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?
We. Are. Doomed.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
..nothing to do with Trump, but hey it might fool people into not liking Trump if we say it is...
"His name was James Damore."
IANAL, but if I were I think I'd change my name to something harder to misread.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why doesn't Assange just leak who manufactures Trump's the hair-hats? Or does he only leak about Hillary and/or relevant topics?
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.
Will he disappear?
Let's try, and see what happens...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
This story makes me laugh, hair hair hair.
Trump's hair is one of those things.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
That money would have been way better spent training a ferret to sit on Donald's head.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
...making a delivery.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
Why care about his ridiculous hair, when the person itself is so much more ridiculous! (except if the hair was controlling the person ...)
Of course if he weren't such a narcissist he wouldn't have resorted to such ludicrous measures in the first place.
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 don't know if it's right for Thiel to pursue his vendetta, but I can't really blame him.
...to assign this story to the "oh, the irony" department?
--
E
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.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
So if you report on something a rich person doesn't like, they can sue you into oblivion? That sounds totally fair.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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?
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.
Iron-clad logic, right there.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sad to say, considering the hilarity of the hairpiece memes, but I think that's pretty good proof Trump's hair is actually real.
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
Or there will be hell toupee.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
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.
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.)
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!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.