Slashdot Mirror
After Bankrupting Gawker, Peter Thiel Demands a Chance to Buy Them (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader quotes BuzzFeed:
In a federal bankruptcy court filing on Wednesday, lawyers for venture capitalist Peter Thiel objected to the ongoing sale process of Gawker.com, arguing that the billionaire has been unfairly excluded from bidding for the assets of the defunct news website... Whoever ends up buying the site will also buy its archives, which are still up, and will have the right to do with them what they want, including delete them. In the filing, Thiel's lawyers allege that he was prevented from receiving information in regard to a potential bid for Gawker.com by plan administrator William Holden and his counsel, Gregg Galardi, following a Wall Street Journal story in October that said Holden and Galardi had started to market the website to potential buyers...
The Wall Street Journal reported that Holden has been exploring the sale of Gawker.com since July, and that he recently marketed the site's potential legal claims against Thiel as part of its appeal. The marketing of those claims is at the center of Thiel's complaint, in which his lawyers argue that Holden should not be able to conduct a sale of those claims and ask that the court drop a motion that allows for discovery to move forward. Thiel's representatives also said that they contacted those administrating the sale of Gawker.com last month "to express Mr. Thiel's interest in participating in the sale process," but that they had been rebuffed and then ignored.
Thiel's complaint calls him the "most able and logical purchaser."
The Wall Street Journal reported that Holden has been exploring the sale of Gawker.com since July, and that he recently marketed the site's potential legal claims against Thiel as part of its appeal. The marketing of those claims is at the center of Thiel's complaint, in which his lawyers argue that Holden should not be able to conduct a sale of those claims and ask that the court drop a motion that allows for discovery to move forward. Thiel's representatives also said that they contacted those administrating the sale of Gawker.com last month "to express Mr. Thiel's interest in participating in the sale process," but that they had been rebuffed and then ignored.
Thiel's complaint calls him the "most able and logical purchaser."
You are not wrong here. Indeed, Thiel never accused Gawker of slandering anybody.
WTF? Thiel was openly gay years before Gawker first heard of him... Get your alternative facts closer to reality.
"Revenge porn" is nearly always true as well — the videos and photos are unaltered. Is it Ok to do it? How about "doxing"?
His revenge campaign is complete — he caused the assholes to run into the ground. He just wants to piss at their crash-site. To "thwart" him, you have to offer the Gawker's creditors a deal better than Thiel is offering. Pony up the cash, or shut up.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The anger directed at Thiel over the Gawker case is reminiscent of the anger about the DNC's hacked emails. Those who are angry completely overlook that if Gawker/the DNC hadn't done anything wrong, there wouldn't have been any fallout in the first place. Gawker never would've been sued for publishing Bollea's sex tape. There would've been no evidence of the Democratic party leadership tampering with the primary process. They don't want to hear the message, so they do their best to ignore it and try to shoot the messenger.
If Thiel had bought judges to engineer some grave miscarriage of justice, I'd have some sympathy for Gawker. But the fundamental truth is most people don't think the right to a free press includes the right to publicize a sex tape recorded without consent. Literally everyone can see themselves somehow winding up in Bollea's (Hulk Hogan's) situation, and they do not want anyone, even the press, to have the right to publicize that tape without their consent. That, plain and simple, is why Gawker lost in a jury trial. That's what bankrupted them, not Thiel helping pay for the lawsuit.
If you don't want to be bankrupted, don't do stupid, illegal, or ethically questionable things which could bankrupt you. This above all: to thine own self be true. Follow that rule and the only thing you have to worry about is being framed. I think Wikileaks is biased and disagree with its MO, but that doesn't mean I automatically side with the people whose stupid, illegal, or ethically questionable secrets Wikileaks reveals. On the contrary I usually think those people are despicable for doing those stupid, illegal, or ethically questionable things.