Mr. Thiel's support for Donald Trump has absolutely nothing to do with his fight against Gawker. Why did the NY Times even bring that up? And I don't understand the logic of all the hating on Mr. Thiel because he has the money to bring an expensive lawsuit to court. The problem is with the justice system itself, not Thiel, that no one can afford justice. So is everyone supposed to sit back and be run rough shod by the press either because it's impossibly expensive for almost everyone to do anything about, or because you will be despised as too privileged if you can afford to do something? Therefore destructive irresponsible journalism should remain untouchable?
17
He is absolutely sickening; if he is a delegate for Trump, there is no way he can acquire any respectability, with those positions.
4
Quite amazing people back Gawker because Thiel is a billionaire and Trump supporter. Morality and ethics seem to have taken a back seat among Democrats as well, perhaps more so than among Republicans. I am glad Hillary's support is dwindling because I wouldn't want her and her victory-at-any-price supporters running this country.
8
The problem with blogs like Gawker or the now defunct Valleywag is that they don't even attempt to adhere to journalistic ethics. They push the boundaries of taste, attempt to sensationalize and make no apologies. The real villain here are these sites that are feeding the minds of milions of readers with garbage. Without people like Thiel, who is going to keep them in check?
15
Well, the guy is originally from West Germany; hardly a bastion of freedom of speech. I guess that's also why he is supporting Trump; because he promised to sue media establishments that would publish content he doesn't like.
Someone should remind this dude that with great power comes great responsibility. Is he not supposed to be comfortable with his sexuality as a fabulously wealthy individual? Or is it rather the case that he wanted to be as comfortable as emperor? They say money doesn't buy love, I guess personal confidence is also out of reach for this emperor wanna be!
Someone should remind this dude that with great power comes great responsibility. Is he not supposed to be comfortable with his sexuality as a fabulously wealthy individual? Or is it rather the case that he wanted to be as comfortable as emperor? They say money doesn't buy love, I guess personal confidence is also out of reach for this emperor wanna be!
6
Gawker, Rolling Stone, and Sabrina Erdely types are pretty hard to feel much sympathy for.
6
A bit of perspective for those who are judging Peter Thiel's fight as unworthy, based on his business dealings, politics and whether Gawker reported a truth: Years ago, I was diagnosed with a serious medical condition that was also a sensitive issue in my life that few knew about. My (former) husband decided to share that information with friends, acquaintances, virtually anyone who would listen. The issue wasn't the illness. I certainly wasn't the only person to ever deal with it. The issue was that it was MY choice, not his, whom to tell and when.
Just because something is true doesn't put it in the public domain.
Just because something is true doesn't put it in the public domain.
12
Who funded the litigation is irrelevant. Both sides had plenty of money to litigate the issue and both sides received a fair hearing in court. The court then made a decision based on the merits, not based on who paid which lawyer.
This is called strategic litigation, and is used in many areas of litigation from opposing Obamacare to Brown v. Board of Ed.
This is called strategic litigation, and is used in many areas of litigation from opposing Obamacare to Brown v. Board of Ed.
6
Peter Thiel is a boor and a nasty peirce of business. Gawker peddles in junk news and sensationalism and Denton is a first class vulgarian who likes to bathe in slime. Do I think it's journalism to out people for no reason except to earn money? Absolutely not. But Thiel's contending that he's just a private individual who was unfairly targeted is false. He's inserted himself in the highest levels of election financing, basically funding the rise of Ted Cruz and his vengeful pursuit of stuffing the LGBT community back into the closet they came from or worse. Hypocrite would be a mild adjective to describe Thiel. I think it's safe to say that a free press and the 1st Amendment would be hard to find on those floating islands Thiel plans on building - with help from Donny Trump most likely. They'll be Yuuugh and run by narcissistic megalomaniacs like those two upstanding defenders of "freedom". And like Trump, he's a massive misogynist.
19
I had not thought much about Gawker until they were skewered by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show ("the internet killed the newspaper star"). The skit was funny -except for the fact that the spokesperson for Gawker really believed that leading with a story about sex was the best way to communicate the news. As long as people keep clicking on Gawker's salacious stories - and the revenue keeps coming in - it is hard to imagine that even someone like Mr. Thiel can make Gawker go away - or change how Gawker does business.
8
Gawker, digital media's answer to excrement, richly deserves this suit. Attempting to reveal the alleged crimes of a Bill Cosby or Hillary Clinton is one thing. Simply reporting a well-known entrepreneur's sexual preference serves no useful purpose and is merely slander, plain and simple.
How ridiculous that Owen Thomas decided this open secret to be homophobic. Speaking as a hetero male, I think we know who's the homophobe here, and it's not Thiel.
How ridiculous that Owen Thomas decided this open secret to be homophobic. Speaking as a hetero male, I think we know who's the homophobe here, and it's not Thiel.
8
This peacock displays himself as a petty, vengeful, and delusional narcissist if this is one of his greatest "philanthropic things" so far. It is no wonder he supports Trump as birds of a feather destroy together.
19
You are the only one, it appears, Janice, who identified the content of narcissism and grandiosity in Thiel's words and self view. His (repeated) reference to the 'commoners' among us and his awkward (perhaps second language?) reference to "people in my category" , the "famous and successful" people, betrays his own insecure self view and lack of value and compassion for others. I'm not referring to compassion for gawker, but to all the peons he thinks he's defending (which are collectively him, not us). His objectification of others likely also applies to those with whom he works and tries to relate...sounds a lot like the Donald, I agree. Those of us successful and famous people who pride ourselves on service, relationships and community find it distasteful to refer to how far up the ladder we have climbed. I request that Mr. Thiel keep his bucks, build more affordable housing in San Francisco, and get some social group therapy.
9
Why doesn't Mr. Thiel just buy Gawker? Isn't that the usual billionaire solution to everything, elections included?
18
I wonder if he took inspiration from the greatest revenge story of all time,
"The Count of Monte Cristo"....?
"The Count of Monte Cristo"....?
4
Outing Peter Thiel is not journalism; it's bottom feeding sensationalistic nastiness. Gawker is garbage and we're all better off without it, I'm glad Thiel is spending his money to crush them
15
As a longtime publisher, editor and journalist, I applaud Mr. Thiel's actions. Gawker does not even seem remotely interested in journalistic ethics, such as the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. Perhaps one could call it Gawker's Clickbait Code of Unethical Journalism.
By the way, had Gawker followed SPJ's code, for instance, the idiotic decision to publish the invasive video would have never taken place because of several factors. Check out SPJ's Code of Ethics and it will become clear that Gawker doesn't practice journalism. It practices sensationalism.
As for The Chronicle's business editor justifying his actions, perhaps The Chronicle's executive editor (or managing editor) should either terminate his employment or offer him a mandatory course in journalistic ethics. He seems bereft of any discernment to see his decision as unethical. In fact, he continues to justify it. Had he followed SPJ's Code of Ethics, he would understand that he should have recused himself from writing the article because of his personal biases against Mr. Thiel.
And, really, he is actually The Chron's business editor? Next year, I will have to reconsider my Chron subscription renewal, if that's the kind of "journalist" it hires.
(Disclosure: I'm a dues-paying SPJ member.)
By the way, had Gawker followed SPJ's code, for instance, the idiotic decision to publish the invasive video would have never taken place because of several factors. Check out SPJ's Code of Ethics and it will become clear that Gawker doesn't practice journalism. It practices sensationalism.
As for The Chronicle's business editor justifying his actions, perhaps The Chronicle's executive editor (or managing editor) should either terminate his employment or offer him a mandatory course in journalistic ethics. He seems bereft of any discernment to see his decision as unethical. In fact, he continues to justify it. Had he followed SPJ's Code of Ethics, he would understand that he should have recused himself from writing the article because of his personal biases against Mr. Thiel.
And, really, he is actually The Chron's business editor? Next year, I will have to reconsider my Chron subscription renewal, if that's the kind of "journalist" it hires.
(Disclosure: I'm a dues-paying SPJ member.)
10
The [Thiel] calling the pot black.
8
Thank you for letting me know that Mr. Theil is a pledged Trump delegate. I will not longer use or accept PayPal.
16
I spent 22 years in journalism and I'm worried at the prospect of billionaires financing lawsuits against journalism organizations. But it was inevitable. Celebrity scandal journalism is highly profitable, and the profit is highest in stories that bring embarrassment and pain. It's also high risk -- even if the stories are vetted by expert lawyers, stories like the ones about Hulk Hogan are very hard to defend in front of a judge or jury.
The next progression I could see would be right-wing billionaires like the Kochs basically financing harassment lawsuits against legitimate journalism organizations like the Washington Post and the New York Times just to try to bleed them out of business.
I don't have any sympathy for Gawker at all -- they are very much at the heart of the problem here. Yes the First Amendment protects slimeballs but every time it has to do that it loses a little of its prestige and power. The constitution is a living document, and rights can shrink as well as grow. If Gawker is where journalism is going, the First Amendment will be steadily eroded for future generations.
The next progression I could see would be right-wing billionaires like the Kochs basically financing harassment lawsuits against legitimate journalism organizations like the Washington Post and the New York Times just to try to bleed them out of business.
I don't have any sympathy for Gawker at all -- they are very much at the heart of the problem here. Yes the First Amendment protects slimeballs but every time it has to do that it loses a little of its prestige and power. The constitution is a living document, and rights can shrink as well as grow. If Gawker is where journalism is going, the First Amendment will be steadily eroded for future generations.
11
I applaud this frankly. The level of vitriol and torridness bandied about in our media under the guise of "Free Press" has risen to Idiocracy levels. Freedom of the Press exists to hold institutions in check. They are not their for our side-show clown entertainment. Gawker, TMZ and similar entertainment news sites should not have the free press protections that they currently enjoy.
6
What "Gawker" did had nothing to do with the 1st amendment. I read it in it's entirety, and it said NOTHING about being able to defame en mass, blackmail, or otherwise spew hate speech (using the "fact" Thiel was gay as a "shaming" technique, as if it were dysfunctional and perverse). In fact, there was no direct language for the "press", which barely existed in that day.
6
Thiel is gay and may have been outed against his will, but this does not automatically make him a good person or even sympathetic. In fact, the more I read about him the more he comes off as a Bond movie villain.
12
Does anyone feel comfortable with billionaires deciding who the "bad" journalists are?
17
If the trial of Bollea Vs Gawker was in anyway compromised by either of the parties, if one of them tried to bribe or influence the other's lawyers or the jury or the judges, or prevent the other from pursuing their best legal course of action, of if a third person's behind-the-scenes involvement somehow interfered with the confrontation clause (which only applies to criminal cases),
it is a perversion of the justice system, and the case needs to be retried and new cases opened.
If Peter Thiel used his money to have his adversaries "punished" in a way that doesn't involve the legal system, there is a case that can be made against him. But otherwise, call it revengeful, call it petty, call it litigious, call it a holy war, or anything else, but his actions don't seem unlawful and don't even seem an "abuse" of his resources. It is a free country for now, and personal views aside, his funding of lawsuits just like his funding of various startups isn't questionable. It certainly seems like meta-gossip.
P.S. I am not a Trump supporter.
it is a perversion of the justice system, and the case needs to be retried and new cases opened.
If Peter Thiel used his money to have his adversaries "punished" in a way that doesn't involve the legal system, there is a case that can be made against him. But otherwise, call it revengeful, call it petty, call it litigious, call it a holy war, or anything else, but his actions don't seem unlawful and don't even seem an "abuse" of his resources. It is a free country for now, and personal views aside, his funding of lawsuits just like his funding of various startups isn't questionable. It certainly seems like meta-gossip.
P.S. I am not a Trump supporter.
3
Not defending the junk journalism here of Gawker which has written some really clever stuff that isn't directed at individuals but Mr. Thiel should be feared. Sadly, his arrogant, selfish, boorish ilk is more representative of the enormous wealth, power and influence within the tech industry, standing in stark contrast to the goofy, genial nerds often portrayed in film and on television. I dare say there is as much, if not more to loathe and fear in Silicon Valley than Wall Street banking and Energy companies.
11
Well done Mr. Thiel, and thank you.
2
Gawker is not the only victim Thiel-the-Vengeful-Billionaire. We taxpayers are. The federal Judiciary is provided at our expense, as is each hearing and motion stemming from the litigious whims of this slighted billionaire and other hedge fund billionaires gaming the system. Thiel is not doing a great public service, as some here contend. He is bleeding taxpayers dry.
Before determining damages in a civil suit, federal judges and juries should be informed of the involvement of third-party billionaire financiers.
Before determining damages in a civil suit, federal judges and juries should be informed of the involvement of third-party billionaire financiers.
8
A case is decided on its merits, not on who's paying the attorneys' fees. The fact that Mr. Thiel footed the bill for Mr. Bollea is entirely irrelevant.
2
The best questions posed on here is the one the reporter neglected to ask:
What taxes does Hulk Hogan pay on the $10 million dollars of legal expenses he has received as a "gift" from Mr. Thiel?
What other lawsuits has Thiel funded and did those recipients ever pay the taxes they were supposed to?
What taxes does Hulk Hogan pay on the $10 million dollars of legal expenses he has received as a "gift" from Mr. Thiel?
What other lawsuits has Thiel funded and did those recipients ever pay the taxes they were supposed to?
7
The "best question" you write. You flatter yourself, the question is completely without interest. However, to address your point, the $10 mill. in question were never in Mr. Bollea's hands. All he had was the attorneys' services. The $10 mill. is a simply notional number -- what his lawyers charged Mr. Thiel.
1
The $10 million are paid to the lawyers and it is the lawyers responsibility to file tax. Hulk didn't get any of the $10 million. Isn't it odd you don't know how the system work but already decided some people failed to pay tax?
1
Is Trump supporter/delegate Peter Thiel really pissed about Gawker trivial report confirming that he's gay or is it something more serious like his rabid misogyny? Or does no one care about Thiel's far more serious, anti democratic stance, which Gawker's outed revealing his distaste, nay, chagrin that women got the vote in 1920? To wit: “The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron.” So there you have it: The problem with women is that they don't vote like their menfolk tell them. We would have so much more freedom, Thiel suggests, if only we'd deprived women of it. http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-couldnt-vote Facebook Backer Wishes Women Couldn't Vote, By Owen Thomas. Thiel was also the first credit co. (PayPal) to restrict donations to WikiLeaks by PayPal members wanting to donate money through their PayPal accounts. So much for "freedom of the press" and voting rights for half the human race, never mind buying the judicial system to get the outcomes you want. Being a very public funder of Marriage Equality with other right-wing billionaires Thiel could hardly expect to remain private about being gay. http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/afer-post/
15
Yet another Silicon Valley nerd turned plutocrat, with a surfeit of IQ points and deficit of common sense. These guys aren't libertarians: they read a lot of Ayn Rand when they were kids, endured a few too many wedgies, and can't seem to let it go.
"It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence", or I suppose that's how you spin it when you've convinced yourself you made it to the top of a meritocracy via your intrinsic qualities and hard work. Certainly it had nothing to do with blind luck, social connections and the advantage of being born white and male.
'Revenge' is such a base motive after all, someone like Peter Thiel is never motivated by anything less than the selfless ambition to make the world a better place. Thank goodness for our benevolent Silicon Valley overlords and their infinite nerd wisdom!
"It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence", or I suppose that's how you spin it when you've convinced yourself you made it to the top of a meritocracy via your intrinsic qualities and hard work. Certainly it had nothing to do with blind luck, social connections and the advantage of being born white and male.
'Revenge' is such a base motive after all, someone like Peter Thiel is never motivated by anything less than the selfless ambition to make the world a better place. Thank goodness for our benevolent Silicon Valley overlords and their infinite nerd wisdom!
9
Truly there is no compelling hero in this story.
17
I'm as concerned about the ability of one person to wield this much power as anyone, but Gawker was wrong in this case. A belief on the original author's part that Thiel's not being out reflected an "attitude [that] was retrograde and homophobic” isn't an excuse to out someone in the media. The fact that they were unapologetic about it, and that it seemingly reflects an institutional attitude towards journalistic ethics, makes it worse and something that is reasonable to litigate.
For the record, I felt the same way when Lilly Wachowski was forced to out herself as transgender by The Daily Mail, who threatened to publish it if she didn't. It's not in the public interest, and, while I don't know the legalities of it (i.e., whether, and to what extent, Thiel is considered a public figure), on a personal level it's an invasion of privacy.
For the record, I felt the same way when Lilly Wachowski was forced to out herself as transgender by The Daily Mail, who threatened to publish it if she didn't. It's not in the public interest, and, while I don't know the legalities of it (i.e., whether, and to what extent, Thiel is considered a public figure), on a personal level it's an invasion of privacy.
10
Gawker obviously doesn't have a shred of integrity or consideration. I wouldn't give them the time of day. I wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire.
6
Down through the years I seldom looked at "Gawker", partly due of the publication's cheesiness but mainly because it struck me as cheap. Cheesy, coarse and cheap. I saw so little merit in it that I didn't give it even a few moments of my time. So all this odd business with "Hulk" Hogan flew by noiselessly without ruffling a feather. I didn't care.
I still don't care -- about Gawker, "Hulk", or even Thiel. They do what they do without me, thank you. They can simmer in the same stewpot for all I care.
I still don't care -- about Gawker, "Hulk", or even Thiel. They do what they do without me, thank you. They can simmer in the same stewpot for all I care.
5
The real story to me here is that even a millionaire needs a billionaire to defeat a nefarious business guilty of wrongdoing in court. Why does it cost ten million to mount a good defense even when you have a strong case?
14
Just a reminder to everyone that we can all do our own part by NOT reading anything published by Gawker!
5
Thiel is doing the public a lot of good. How the tides are a changing in this country and we can all collectively start to exhale. Ironic that a conservative (Republican) White gay male is on a crusade to take down a liberal propaganda site. Gawker was nothing more than a collection of overzealous, over educated, brainwashed liberal elites that didn't even report. With Hillary Clinton cratering in the polls, with Sanders and Trump rising, this continues to support my theory that majority of people are starting to think for themselves. Just a year or so ago, I thought we were on the verge of a zombie apocalypse or something. After selling out after 8 years of Obama and the propaganda and government control bestowed upon us, people are fighting back. I said it here 10 times in 2014 that 2014 was peak liberal year. That liberals would enjoy no greater point in history to spew their garbage. And I don't mean Sanders liberals. I consider myself part of that group, as much as Trump's group. I mean these elitist neo liberals that speak down from their glass towers. Those siphoning all the worlds money by telling people what they want to hear. It's game over and I strongly suggest that once reality sets in for the rest, that Hillary supporters go get their heads examined. This is not a joke. You should go home, look in the mirror and question yourselves. Most will see witches in their reflection...Too bad.
3
I don't think you know the meaning of the word "ironic". If you think it's irony that a staunch conservative libertarian if going after a "liberal" site like Gawker, you should get your head examined, pronto. The irony here is that Thiel, so pissed off about being outed, smarting from being pushed into the limelight, still thinks it's a good investment to bankroll Ted Cruz and his virulent crusade against all things LGBT. Now that's truly ironic.
4
It's fascinating to read so many comments from people who judge Thiel's actions negatively because he supports Trump. It ought to go without saying that Thiel's choice of presidential candidate is extraneous to the matter at hand, but I guess liberals aren't so liberal these days.
Free speech? Don't make me laugh.
Free speech? Don't make me laugh.
7
Shed not one tear for Peter Theil.
He is an aggressive libertarian, and yet another Silicon Valley charlatan who conveniently ignore that government-run courts and government-built infrastructure enable his profits and this lawsuit.
Valleywag was deeply flawed. But it was the one body that took Thiel and his con-artist cohorts in Silicon Valley to task.
He is an aggressive libertarian, and yet another Silicon Valley charlatan who conveniently ignore that government-run courts and government-built infrastructure enable his profits and this lawsuit.
Valleywag was deeply flawed. But it was the one body that took Thiel and his con-artist cohorts in Silicon Valley to task.
11
There seems to be a lot of mis-understanding of that "Libertarians" don't believe in rule of law. QUITE the contrary. Libertarians believe in rule of clear, consistent, unbias laws that fully entitle everyone to their rights.
Who owns the clean air? No one. Not drivers, not coal burning power plants.
Current approach? Spend hundreds of million regulating the industry. Mandate solution that don't make cost-benefit sense, create a multi-million dollar lobbying industry that manipulates the rules in favor of a few and lets them avoid the billions in damage from air pollution. Who wins in this approach you ask? Politicians of course. Political donations and lobbying that empowers and enriches the political elite. We poor tax payers lose.
Imagine a tax for cleaning air pollution added onto gasoline, coal generation, that covered the cost of cleanup. This is a Libertarian approach. How do you think industry and consumers would react to facing billiions in additional cost for their polluting cars, power plants?
Libertarians don't believe in "free riders" Everyone should bear the true cost of their actions and pay for their benefits. Damage caused by irresponsible free speech should be compensated. No one should get a free pass.
Who owns the clean air? No one. Not drivers, not coal burning power plants.
Current approach? Spend hundreds of million regulating the industry. Mandate solution that don't make cost-benefit sense, create a multi-million dollar lobbying industry that manipulates the rules in favor of a few and lets them avoid the billions in damage from air pollution. Who wins in this approach you ask? Politicians of course. Political donations and lobbying that empowers and enriches the political elite. We poor tax payers lose.
Imagine a tax for cleaning air pollution added onto gasoline, coal generation, that covered the cost of cleanup. This is a Libertarian approach. How do you think industry and consumers would react to facing billiions in additional cost for their polluting cars, power plants?
Libertarians don't believe in "free riders" Everyone should bear the true cost of their actions and pay for their benefits. Damage caused by irresponsible free speech should be compensated. No one should get a free pass.
2
A libertarian that would back a gas tax?
Talk about unicorns.....
Talk about unicorns.....
1
The (clean?) air isn't owned by no one; it's owned by everyone. That's why you owe a duty to your fellow human beings, and why libertarianism is a morally bankrupt college dorm room fantasy.
4
Carbon Tax is Libertarian idea. So is pollution credit exchange. Read a little, think a lot, understand the truth.
3
I agree with him that these violations of privacy are not journalism. That said, didn't he make the money he is using to fund this lawsuit from Facebook. And isn't Facebook the biggest violator of folks' privacy in the world? I guess he is sorry now that he ever invested in Facebook?
Facebook is a data mining service that mines folks private info and data and isn't really honest with them about this. How many Americans actually understand that this is what Facebook is? A place to take folks bio data and mine their info without their consent. Doesn't Facebook also intrude on folks' privacy in their home, in their private property by bringing its technology into folks homes and lives…. Isn't he the reason that this type of content even exists… Also he should be proud he is gay. His parents should have worked harder to make him feel good about his homosexuality. Hopefully if he were a child being raised today he would not feel that someone calling him out as Gay were some sort of insult as it is nothing to be ashamed about.
Facebook is a data mining service that mines folks private info and data and isn't really honest with them about this. How many Americans actually understand that this is what Facebook is? A place to take folks bio data and mine their info without their consent. Doesn't Facebook also intrude on folks' privacy in their home, in their private property by bringing its technology into folks homes and lives…. Isn't he the reason that this type of content even exists… Also he should be proud he is gay. His parents should have worked harder to make him feel good about his homosexuality. Hopefully if he were a child being raised today he would not feel that someone calling him out as Gay were some sort of insult as it is nothing to be ashamed about.
4
The key difference between Facebook and Gawker, in my view, is that signing up and adding all of your own personal information is your choice. It is clear from the response of those targeted that many of the "outings" and sex tapes were not released with consent. Facebook may be spying on us but we told them that they were allowed to do it.
2
Absolutely needed. It might sound too good to be true but he is a person that stands by core principals and is going to use his money and influence to make the world a better place. I applaud these efforts.
I also think the last bit of the article is very important. Americans will decide the fate of Gawker. Peter Thiel is simply giving them a chance to decide instead of allowing Gawker to throw money at the issue and brush it under the rug.
I also think the last bit of the article is very important. Americans will decide the fate of Gawker. Peter Thiel is simply giving them a chance to decide instead of allowing Gawker to throw money at the issue and brush it under the rug.
4
Look up his views on women getting the right to vote. Not especially forward (retrogade at best) thinking or a formula for making the world a better place.
Nick Denton is a bully of the worst sort, that rude frat boy with a megaphone who never matured, and I hope this judgement destroys him and Gawker.
This is not a First Amendment issue. This is about purposely and publicly working to invade someone's life for money (clicks and subscribers) and notoriety, nothing more. Acts of that nature have no First Amendment protection.
Reading the trial transcripts, testimony by the people who founded and run Gawker reveals just how mindlessly stupid and 'bro' cultured these people are. As a reasonable adult, it's impossible to read what they said without feeling a sense of satisfaction that they were found guilty and hammered.
Mr. Thiel is one of my heroes.
This is not a First Amendment issue. This is about purposely and publicly working to invade someone's life for money (clicks and subscribers) and notoriety, nothing more. Acts of that nature have no First Amendment protection.
Reading the trial transcripts, testimony by the people who founded and run Gawker reveals just how mindlessly stupid and 'bro' cultured these people are. As a reasonable adult, it's impossible to read what they said without feeling a sense of satisfaction that they were found guilty and hammered.
Mr. Thiel is one of my heroes.
11
I read Gawker every morning. It's informative and funny and I've been reading it for years now and will continue to so. Peter Thiel is trying to deprive me of Gawker? He seems like the bully here.
2
Thiel isn't depriving you of anything. It's Gawker's own fault.
1
I think the real question here concerns what freedom of the press should mean. At times it is interpreted very broadly. Should any outlet that calls themselves "press" have full freedom to do as they want? Smear tactics, sloppy inaccurate reporting, grossly biased and misleading reporting, all should be open to attack and possibly prosecution imo. Thiel didn't pay a corrupt judge, buy some seats in the senate, or hire a bunch of goons. There are good arguments concerning money in the legal system, but they are not clear cut here. Can buying a good lawyer help? Sure. But not being able to afford good representation also blocks justice. That Thiel is rich and therefore could do this is being used in support of blocking the lawsuit. Absolutely not, the question is why can't everyone who has been damaged by malicious, lazy, or incompetent media easily do the same. I have little sympathy with either side here, both played with fire in the mud, and both are getting burned and dirty. However, I don't think that Mr Thiel has any less right than anyone to ask questions, his money is beside the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that the trial was corrupted. And if the decision is wrong, it will be corrected on appeal. To get back to my first point, freedom of the press is a good thing, but like any such freedom it can be abused. The line between legitimate reporting and the public's right to know and this sort of nonsense could be easily found, if anyone really cared to look.
3
He's gay, yet a Trump delegate? It's all about preserving the 1%'s money. Bah!
12
Lucky lawyers on the receiving end of his beneficence.
5
"It's less about revenge and more about specific deterrence."
So roughly 49% revenge and 51% specific deterrence?
So roughly 49% revenge and 51% specific deterrence?
4
I think that interference with a business is still a tort. I hope Gawker sues him and wins punitive damages!
5
The fact that is hedge funds are Lord of the Rings references and he's pledging for Donald Trump tell me all I need to know about this thin-skinned billionaire. What a sad guy.
8
Billionaires have always had secret wars, and helped craft the laws to protect such attacks. Just look at the Crash of 2008 and how little we really know about what happened, and why nobody was punished. The rich live in a different world than the rest of us, and until we pull them down to our level, nothing will change. That would mean a revolution. Is the US ready for such a thing?
3
Silicon valley is totally corrupt. They are the new evil oligarchs. When Obama goes to silicon valley do you think he's just visiting for fun. No... He's there to raise money. This money buys influence. When did we as a people think it was good to let tech CEO's run this country. One thing he said is true, barring Apple, the only thing these people have invented are 140 character programs and apps that let someone driving a care pick up and take you somewhere. So this guy is now trying to control what we think. I hope he loses on appeal. Silicon valley needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. We would actually be better if these people left the country. Paypal... wow very futuristic.
5
Can I persuade Mr. Thiel to go after the jerk who stole my identity last year? The cops sure don't give a hoot.
5
Gee, good thing Thiel isn't Hispanic, or black, or Muslim, or a woman, or he might have had a problem with Mr. Trump. He's a real man of the people. But when you gift the world with the joy and wonder of Paypal, certain things can be forgiven.
4
Seems like a nefarious billionaire could leak something a news site could not resist and then sue them for all they've got to shut them down. Interesting.
4
As a consumer of news I long ago avoided clicking Gawker and its assortment of sites. They went out of their way to target people that had no or even a limited public profile. I found their writers to be not so nice people and the smug virtual signaling annoying. Hooray for Peter, destroying people's lives isn't journalism it's wickedness.
3
So Mr. Thiel invested about 10 million to give Hulk Hogan 140 million. Obviously this far from over.
1
Media outlets and Google giant do not seem to understand the importance of individual personal rights and privacy. We live in a world where people can post anything they like and do not seem to be afraid of the consequences or damaging effects this type of issue can cause. Thiel is right for protecting his rights and and taking action into the vicious rumors people are simply able to post online.
3
"Privacy", in the Information Age?
There's an oxymoron ...
There's an oxymoron ...
2
Many seem to miss the difference between coming out and being outed.
Coming out is meant to be personally liberating as it is assumed that one has been closeted due to fear of what some person, most often family or employer, might think of them not just to tell everyone they are gay. That last is no ones business or concern.
Being outed is/was a mean spirited act by resentful nasty people (often self described gay activists) who imposed their personal judgment on people they thought or knew to be gay to intentionally shame and harm them because they did not approve of this persons choosing to remain private about their sexuality.
This is essentially what Gawker did to Mr Theil probably imagining as has been mentioned in the comments that he was hiding his gayness for other reasons than his personal privacy.
Who he has sex with has no bearing on his politics or business practices and is not the concern of anyone but himself.
Coming out is meant to be personally liberating as it is assumed that one has been closeted due to fear of what some person, most often family or employer, might think of them not just to tell everyone they are gay. That last is no ones business or concern.
Being outed is/was a mean spirited act by resentful nasty people (often self described gay activists) who imposed their personal judgment on people they thought or knew to be gay to intentionally shame and harm them because they did not approve of this persons choosing to remain private about their sexuality.
This is essentially what Gawker did to Mr Theil probably imagining as has been mentioned in the comments that he was hiding his gayness for other reasons than his personal privacy.
Who he has sex with has no bearing on his politics or business practices and is not the concern of anyone but himself.
5
So I guess Thiel's true revenge was bankrolling Ted Cruz to get back at all those liberal gay activists who were hellbent on outing him to his libertarian and Republican buddies? Well, thanks Pete, you did succeed in making my life worse with the rise of Ted Cruz and his ilk.
Just one question: are people actually suggesting that outing someone (truthfully) who is in the public eye should be a wrong for which you can sue a publisher?
Personally, I feel that if it would make the news when that individual comes out of the closet, then it's by definition newsworthy -- and it doesn't matter if another party does it for them. In other words, the fact that Tim Cook or Peter Thiel is gay is news I and others would be interested in reading about and so outing them should be protected as newsworthy under the First Amendment.
Personally, I feel that if it would make the news when that individual comes out of the closet, then it's by definition newsworthy -- and it doesn't matter if another party does it for them. In other words, the fact that Tim Cook or Peter Thiel is gay is news I and others would be interested in reading about and so outing them should be protected as newsworthy under the First Amendment.
3
So what about people like the married New York media executive that they outed and ridiculed just because he has a famous brother? His life was ruined. Do you think its OK to ruin peoples lives? Cook and Theil are businesspeople and otherwise not in the public sphere. Should Gawker publish all of your personal details because people can find things in them to laugh at, at your expense?
3
While I find Gawker distasteful, I'm more troubled by a billionaire bank rolling cases to stifle free speech from media organizations that they find distasteful.
I despise Fox News but you won't see me using the courts to suppress their views.
I despise Fox News but you won't see me using the courts to suppress their views.
8
Two scary prospects, billionaires intimidating a free press or Gawker ruining innocent people's lives. Gawker is really disgusting, but I wish there were another way to respond to them. Unfortunately there may not be.
2
Gee, now I have to go read Gawker because I don't want an Evangelical Christian telling me what I can and cannot read.
4
While Gawker clearly has journalistic flaws and failures, I'm concerned that readers are missing the forest for the trees.
We have corporate bankrolling of the press and corporate bankrupting of the press. Consider the wider implications of this bankrolling in a more savory context. Imagine if the story was a carefully sourced and vetted examination of a corporate body that knowingly produced a dangerous product that directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds. Imagine the story coming from a small news outlet of a political persuasion. In all reality, that corporate body would destroy that outlets legal fee stash and force it to rely on operating expenses (staff fees, research fees, travel fees) to fight. Even if the outcome was favorable, the news outlet would be destroyed.
Gawker will have to deal with the consequences of its thoughtless and unethical actions.
American society will have to deal with the consequences of corporate destruction of the free press.
When million and billionaire elephants fight, the people in the grass suffer.
We have corporate bankrolling of the press and corporate bankrupting of the press. Consider the wider implications of this bankrolling in a more savory context. Imagine if the story was a carefully sourced and vetted examination of a corporate body that knowingly produced a dangerous product that directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds. Imagine the story coming from a small news outlet of a political persuasion. In all reality, that corporate body would destroy that outlets legal fee stash and force it to rely on operating expenses (staff fees, research fees, travel fees) to fight. Even if the outcome was favorable, the news outlet would be destroyed.
Gawker will have to deal with the consequences of its thoughtless and unethical actions.
American society will have to deal with the consequences of corporate destruction of the free press.
When million and billionaire elephants fight, the people in the grass suffer.
5
An acquaintance of my was a Cruz supporter, now plans to vote libertarian. Apparently libertarians actually love telling other people what to do.
3
This article should have described the 2007 article printed at Gawker. As ais clear from that article, Mr. Thiel was already "out." He made no secret of his private life. The article was, among other things, actually about the hypocrisy of Mr. Thiel's funding of hurtful conservative causes that published anti-gay rhetoric. Basically, Mr. Thiel was called out for being a hypocrite, not gay. By not describing the article, the Times essentially endorses Mr. Thiel's retrospective take on events. I expect better.
13
It seems like a fair point yet I don't agree with an awful lot that Obama has done but I voted for him twice. You do not have to agree with people on all things to agree with them in general.
Also Gawker meant to make trouble for him among gay people who somehow think that gayness is the only factor that should count in any consideration of anything. Some people are adults who rarely think of sex or sexuality and definitely do not think of sexuality when making decisions about politics.
The fact of hyper Christian republicans hating on gays not making him turn his head is no different than black people recognizing the intended potential of our founding documents and participating in the system trying to change it in the face of the racism they have faced since Emancipation.
That sort of gay or nay thinking is basically the same sort of hate being reflected back.
Also Gawker meant to make trouble for him among gay people who somehow think that gayness is the only factor that should count in any consideration of anything. Some people are adults who rarely think of sex or sexuality and definitely do not think of sexuality when making decisions about politics.
The fact of hyper Christian republicans hating on gays not making him turn his head is no different than black people recognizing the intended potential of our founding documents and participating in the system trying to change it in the face of the racism they have faced since Emancipation.
That sort of gay or nay thinking is basically the same sort of hate being reflected back.
You should read the original article.
1
Mr. Thiel is free to spend his money on whatever he wants, but when he pursues a personal agenda that implicates the First Amendment it should be in full view of the public. By instead choosing to secretly fund the plaintiff's case against Gawker, he undermined his alleged claim to have acted in the public interest. Or, this dust up was always just about personal revenge and not about a responsible free press, in which case Mr. Thiel required a judgment against Gawker before he would allow himself to be (this time voluntarily) outed. My guess: this is just about good old fashioned revenge.
4
Yes, and revenge is best served cold.
"— specifically the emerging field of litigation finance, in which third parties like hedge funds and investment firms pay for other people’s lawsuits."
So my 401k is now play money for gambling on lawsuits. Great. Good to know.
So my 401k is now play money for gambling on lawsuits. Great. Good to know.
3
"Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for Donald J. Trump..."
Long live Gawker!
Long live Gawker!
5
All you need to kno wabout Thiel is that he supports Trump.
End of story.
Thiel doesn't like you, he''ll use his faux Libertarian ideals and endless war chest
to combat you.
End of story.
Thiel doesn't like you, he''ll use his faux Libertarian ideals and endless war chest
to combat you.
6
Mr. Thiel: If you were standing up on a stage right now, I would throw a bouquet of flowers in your direction. Bravo.
6
Peter Thiel saw an opportunity to right a wrong, maybe many wrongs, in his view. The fact that he provided financial support, by paying the court case fees, is really no different than a lawyer or lawyers doing pro bono work to correct an injustice?
I'm no legal expert, but short of proving that his money was used to bribe witnesses, encourage perjury or engage in some other illicit activity to secure an outcome, why is this an issue?
It's akin to giving money to a lobbying group or Political Action Committee, no? Yes, maybe he should have been transparent, but then Gawker would have attempted to spin this as a vendetta. This case stood on it's merits, the court denied Gawker's attempt to have the verdict repealed.
The real issue is the right of a citizen, regardless of their celebrity status, to a private life. This is the second large award on privacy matters and probably won't be the last.
Given Gawker's tenacity I doubt this will go away, but fundamentally, who will have the deeper pockets? As the lyrics from Cabaret say, "Money Makes the World Go Round".
I'm no legal expert, but short of proving that his money was used to bribe witnesses, encourage perjury or engage in some other illicit activity to secure an outcome, why is this an issue?
It's akin to giving money to a lobbying group or Political Action Committee, no? Yes, maybe he should have been transparent, but then Gawker would have attempted to spin this as a vendetta. This case stood on it's merits, the court denied Gawker's attempt to have the verdict repealed.
The real issue is the right of a citizen, regardless of their celebrity status, to a private life. This is the second large award on privacy matters and probably won't be the last.
Given Gawker's tenacity I doubt this will go away, but fundamentally, who will have the deeper pockets? As the lyrics from Cabaret say, "Money Makes the World Go Round".
5
Gawker is to journalism what the Roman Colosseum was to sports. I am sure many Colosseum regulars were unhappy when the place eventually shut down.
2
"But the revelation this week that Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others has raised a series of new questions about the First Amendment as well as about the role of big money in the court system — specifically the emerging field of litigation finance, in which third parties like hedge funds and investment firms pay for other people’s lawsuits."
A VERY dangerous field - litigation finance - used in County Courthouses, where those who are behind the finance loans are the very lawyers loaning the money to the "poorer" litigant.
It's self-dealing. It's "Usury".
Glaring scary example http://www.bblchurchill.com The very backers of this "litigation finance" are e.g. divorce attorneys who stand to benefit - in what is nearly always rigged litigation against the one who needs to "borrow" at high fees, and guaranteed to lose, impoverishing the one who can't afford to defend themselves or those dependent on them.
Corrupt County Courts in the US become more corrupt in scenarios such as this.
The Public Interest is not well served and Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
A VERY dangerous field - litigation finance - used in County Courthouses, where those who are behind the finance loans are the very lawyers loaning the money to the "poorer" litigant.
It's self-dealing. It's "Usury".
Glaring scary example http://www.bblchurchill.com The very backers of this "litigation finance" are e.g. divorce attorneys who stand to benefit - in what is nearly always rigged litigation against the one who needs to "borrow" at high fees, and guaranteed to lose, impoverishing the one who can't afford to defend themselves or those dependent on them.
Corrupt County Courts in the US become more corrupt in scenarios such as this.
The Public Interest is not well served and Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
4
So, ingenious and disingenuous at the same time -- does that about cover it? He's hardly alone among the silivalley Privileged, but he'd be an object of pity if his fortune didn't render him dangerous to the rest of us.
5
I was all for him until trump came up. It's clear this billionaire has his own agenda supporting the beast.
9
If Thiel is motivated purely by the animus he feels for being outed as gay, then I truly feel sorry for him.
Even assuming there were rampant homophobia in the Silicon Valley where he works, at Stanford where he graduated, in San Francisco where he lives, how can he find being gay as something private and secretive in this age where gays get married?
He should take a cue from his straight hero, Donald Trump, who flaunts the size of his heterosexual hands but hides his tax returns so deep in his closet that when asked how much he pays in taxes, he scolded "none of your business."
Even assuming there were rampant homophobia in the Silicon Valley where he works, at Stanford where he graduated, in San Francisco where he lives, how can he find being gay as something private and secretive in this age where gays get married?
He should take a cue from his straight hero, Donald Trump, who flaunts the size of his heterosexual hands but hides his tax returns so deep in his closet that when asked how much he pays in taxes, he scolded "none of your business."
11
IN 2007, and in 2016, this can be very harmful. You obviously dont have any gay friends but find some gays and talk to them. Your lack of compassion is exactly why we need people like Thiel to fight back.
1
The difference between traditional "litigation financing" and Mr. Thiel's vendetta is that the former is intended to allow the small guy to afford the resources to fight the behemoth legally. That's obviously not the case here and so the comparison/analogy is strained at best. This is a democracy and Gawker, warts and all is as essential a part of the free press as the "established" journalism. Thiel is a bully; I can see the lawyers kept busy with high handed cease and desist letters for anything that gets his goat.
7
Just like trump.
1
Thiel's denial is preposterous. It is all about revenge. He should admit it. Gawker and its ilk appeal to our trashy predilections. In this case, 2 wrongs make a right.
1
Justice is nothing but revenge with woofd paneling. Works for me.
Reading the comments here, it is interesting that rage against billionaires has reached the point of denouncing them even when they use their money to do something GREAT.
5
The loser here is the American judicial system. This story just confirms what everyone knows that if you have money and best lawyers you can get favorable decision and cause maximum damage to your opponent. A little guy with a regular lawyer or worse a public defender going up against big corporate lawyers and winning the case is true only in movies.
5
I sometimes think that stuff like this explains why many Americans hold "the media" in such low regard. When I was a kid (1970s and 1980s), the term "media" meant serious newspapers, weeklies such as Time and the evening news (Cronkite, John Chancellor etc) in addition to public radio and the Sunday talk shows. Today, the term "media" means sports, celebrity gossip, pundit shouting and reality TV. I'm more conservative than the average NY Times reader, but I keep my subscription current because I appreciate serious and intelligent news, even if they do not always endorse my candidate. Still, I see even serious outlets devoting more time to such frippery as Fashion Week, Beyoncé's latest album etc. The point is, as media starts to encompass such garbage as Hulk Hogan's sex life and who wore what to the Met gala, you can expect Americans to become less sympathetic to the First Amendment protection that everyone benefits from - NY Times and Weekly World News included. I expect to see more such lawsuits in the future.
2
Everyone involved in this is despicable: Gawker, Thiel, Hogan and by association with Thiel, Donald Trump. Yuck on all'a y'all!
5
Trump isn't involved "by association."
I will always remember Gawker when -- for a while about 7 or so years ago -- it had its snarky cogent finger on the pulse of social hypocrisy.
2
I've been a media professional for 40 years and would like few things better than to see Gawker shuttered. If it has a chilling effect on media, fine. Media needs chilling whenever it sinks to Gawker's level of zero professionalism. Gawker's form of journalism is devoid of simple human decency and respect.
12
Mr. Thiel seems to be following the adage that revenge is a dish best serve cold.
6
I rarely agree with Peter Thiel. I do this time.
8
It figures that a libertarian and Trump delegate would do this, given that both libertarians and Trump have a habit of running to the courts when they want somebody bullied, and given Trump's bellowing about wanting the libel laws changed to cut down on stories he doesn't like.
Par for the course, really. And you have to admire the sheer gall it takes to bellow about smaller government, then expanding government via this sort of a backhanded little move.
One wonders who Theil'll bankroll to sue the Times for this very story.
Par for the course, really. And you have to admire the sheer gall it takes to bellow about smaller government, then expanding government via this sort of a backhanded little move.
One wonders who Theil'll bankroll to sue the Times for this very story.
9
Outing Thiel is quite different. He is one of the select few gay people who endorse and support conservative reactionaries, though the ideologies of these right wing idealogues are not tolerant of homosexual lifestyles.
This seems contradictory, and it is. That is why it was called out as being hypocritical. It is obvious that Thiel supports Republican Conservatives because he is a Capitalist, not just someone who likes to make money, but someone who literally invests capital in businesses. He wants to maximize revenue, reduce risk, and of course pay the least amount of taxes.
The anti-labor stuff is just icing on the cake.
Now he has his own compartmentalization to deal with funding candidates and causes that truth be told run counter to his personal interests, if not his financial ones. But his money has a very public impact. He deserved to be outed, not as gay, but as a hypocrite.
This seems contradictory, and it is. That is why it was called out as being hypocritical. It is obvious that Thiel supports Republican Conservatives because he is a Capitalist, not just someone who likes to make money, but someone who literally invests capital in businesses. He wants to maximize revenue, reduce risk, and of course pay the least amount of taxes.
The anti-labor stuff is just icing on the cake.
Now he has his own compartmentalization to deal with funding candidates and causes that truth be told run counter to his personal interests, if not his financial ones. But his money has a very public impact. He deserved to be outed, not as gay, but as a hypocrite.
21
Well said C, but most commenters here don't get the reason why Gawker published about Thiel. The rabid quality of some of the comments pretty much says it all.
3
I see no problem with Thiel assisting with financing Hogan's lawsuit. Nothing illegal or unethical about it.
6
So Thiel's desire for revenge is "ethical" for you then? Legal? Sure. Ethical? Nope.
2
The rich are different from the rest of us. They can spend fortunes on lawsuits.
9
Is Mr. Hogan paying income taxes on his legal bills that Mr. Thiel is paying for?
5
@Tyrone - The money was paid to lawyers, not Mr. Hogan. It's income to the law firm.
3
"It's income to the law firm." I am sure they will say their expenses were paid by the third party and their work for Bollea was Pro Bono
@lotusflower
If it were given to Mr Hogan, it would be considered a gift and the IRS makes the giver of the gift pay the tax, not the recipient. We really have no idea how the financing was arranged but I suspect it was done in a way that minimized taxes.
If it were given to Mr Hogan, it would be considered a gift and the IRS makes the giver of the gift pay the tax, not the recipient. We really have no idea how the financing was arranged but I suspect it was done in a way that minimized taxes.
Let's not lose sight of the fundamental economic exchange here: $10 million was spent by A to enrich B by $140 million paid for by C a corporation.
1) It is just a redistribution of $150 million among the wealthy.
2) $10 million could have done a lot of good for a lot of people.
3) $140 million could do 14 times that good, if A could make B or C transfer that wealth elsewhere.
So unless one really thinks that humanity's greatest evil is Gawkers and that the most good $150 million can buy in this world is to take down Gawkers and compensate Hulk Hogan (let's not forget the lawyers), I think Thiel and Hogan and Gawkers could do a little better for their fellow man.
1) It is just a redistribution of $150 million among the wealthy.
2) $10 million could have done a lot of good for a lot of people.
3) $140 million could do 14 times that good, if A could make B or C transfer that wealth elsewhere.
So unless one really thinks that humanity's greatest evil is Gawkers and that the most good $150 million can buy in this world is to take down Gawkers and compensate Hulk Hogan (let's not forget the lawyers), I think Thiel and Hogan and Gawkers could do a little better for their fellow man.
14
Utter ignorance. Gawker will not pay $140 mm.
1
too many lawyers involved, who are the ones making $$$ and costing a lot of wasted dollars when the common people are suffering. Bring on Trump.
3
Oh, not it's all starting to make sense. What a fool to seek revenge by helping out trash like Bollea. What's next, is he going to adopt bubba the love sponge? This guy is creepy.
11
Depending on the backlash Thiel gets from this, will he go after the Times for "outing" his use of the legal system to enact vendettas based on personal grudges?
15
First you are wrong, many outlets carried Mr Dentons suppositions. Secondly what a silly idea even if it were true the Times was the only outlet that carried the story. He says right in this article that he expected to eventually be identified as the source of the funding.
A) There's nothing wrong with financing a lawsuit.
B) Gawker is revolting and the world would be a better place without it.
B) Gawker is revolting and the world would be a better place without it.
12
“I can defend myself. Most of the people they attack are not people in my category. They usually attack less prominent, far less wealthy people that simply can’t defend themselves.”
Reading this, I thought that this man is an narcissistic elitist. Upon learning of Mr. Thiel's support of Donald Trump, it all made sense.
Reading this, I thought that this man is an narcissistic elitist. Upon learning of Mr. Thiel's support of Donald Trump, it all made sense.
17
Please unpack that and explain how you get from him thinking about defenseless victims to being narcissistic elitist.
1
You lost me at Trump.
14
Sites like Gawker behave as they do because they have no regard for the well being of others and, until now, there have been no consequences to deter them from engaging in the behavior. The end--profit--justifies the means--the destruction of others under the pretense of it being news. As MediaGuy12 reported, Gawker doesn't even have the decency to give to publish his point of view, let alone retract the story, even when he had proved them wrong. I applaud Mr. Thiel for helping stop this kind of malicious profiteering.
12
Did it bother Mr. Thiel when the man he is supporting for President, Donald Trump, claimed that Ted Cruz' father was with Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination?
Or does he give a pass on gossip if it comes out of the mouths of a man who he hopes would be President?
Or does he give a pass on gossip if it comes out of the mouths of a man who he hopes would be President?
25
Thiel's sexual preferences and those of his friends are not the business of Gawker. To reveal such personal details, whether true or not, is, to me, repulsive and I applaud Thiel for going after them with everything he's got.
19
Gay, malicious multimillionaire Nick Denton missed the most important point in his investigation of billionaire Peter Thiel. Which isn't that Thiel is gay -- it's that Thiel evidently doesn't use lube.
Considering the misery that Denton has dumped on many people, I would call that justice.
Considering the misery that Denton has dumped on many people, I would call that justice.
1
Doubtless you feel this equally strongly with regard to, say, the Clintons. Doubtless, too, you'd like to see Dennis Hastert suing whoever.
1
A billionaire tries to put a media company out of business because he was outed as gay? Really? In the 35 years since I came out our society's progress towards acceptance of homosexuality has been remarkable. In many social circles being gay is now not much less accepted than being left handed. I wonder what is says about Mr. Thiel that he reacted so negatively to what is essentially just a description of who he is.
12
read the article.
5
I think seeking to identify Mr Theil has backfired.
It already looked like Gawker intentionally files suspect “reports” because they can count on the victim being unable to afford to sue them.
Now they are complaining because a concerned citizen sees how they operate skirting and flouting the law using the relative poverty of their victims to get away with it and untold damage using his resources to counter them in an honest and honorable way.
We need to drive this sort of depraved pandering to ignorance British style Press out of this country once and for all. Let’s hope Fox is next.
It already looked like Gawker intentionally files suspect “reports” because they can count on the victim being unable to afford to sue them.
Now they are complaining because a concerned citizen sees how they operate skirting and flouting the law using the relative poverty of their victims to get away with it and untold damage using his resources to counter them in an honest and honorable way.
We need to drive this sort of depraved pandering to ignorance British style Press out of this country once and for all. Let’s hope Fox is next.
6
"....the emerging field of litigation finance, in which third parties like hedge funds and investment firms pay for other people’s lawsuits." Great.
3
"Litigation Finance" is described here as a 'emerging field. Emerging from what? 100+ years of action by the ACLU, like its Scopes trial financing? The financial support of litigants in our hyper-expensive legal system has been key to environmental actions by groups like the Environmental Defense Fund. The Innocence Project aids people in prison who have no income. Even the willingness to trial lawyers to tackle tough cases on commission is a form of litigation finance which undercut Big Asbestos and Big Tobacco.
So long as our legal system permits either side to spend freely while the other side is financially strapped, often by the circumstances that brought the case, equal justice remains a long shot best predicted by the spending ratio of one side's spending over the other's. For example, Frontline/NPR's story this week about insurance companies and Hurricane Sandy victims.
Attorneys are 'officers of the court'. If, as such, they were required to be paid on the same scale regardless of which side they represent, our legal system would look a lot different. This, not political campaigns, is the best example how 'money is speech' distorts America. Or, as Dylan said, "Money doesn't talk, is screams".
So long as our legal system permits either side to spend freely while the other side is financially strapped, often by the circumstances that brought the case, equal justice remains a long shot best predicted by the spending ratio of one side's spending over the other's. For example, Frontline/NPR's story this week about insurance companies and Hurricane Sandy victims.
Attorneys are 'officers of the court'. If, as such, they were required to be paid on the same scale regardless of which side they represent, our legal system would look a lot different. This, not political campaigns, is the best example how 'money is speech' distorts America. Or, as Dylan said, "Money doesn't talk, is screams".
5
You honestly don't see a diff between the ACLUs helping out a biology teacher and the Innocence Project trying to keep innocent men from being executed, and a billionaire bankrolling Hulk Hogan's suit because he's upset he got outed.
Remarkable.
Remarkable.
7
Translation of "This is not about getting revenge:" it's about getting revenge.
21
How did a story with both Constitutional issues, Legal Funding issues, as well as relevant Social ones turn into an irrelevant Trump conversation? Thiel's political backing adds as much to this story as, say, his sexual preference does in his investment strategies. Instead of walking away with a thought provoking experience, I'm only shaking my head at the absurd and rabid anti Trump postings from the comment page.
Though I think the article was fairly even-handed, Sorkin including the strangely out of place Trump comment was huge disservice to an otherwise interesting piece.
Though I think the article was fairly even-handed, Sorkin including the strangely out of place Trump comment was huge disservice to an otherwise interesting piece.
3
As a side note here, I've noticed that more than a few people on these comments have referred to Thiel's "sexual preference" as though being gay is the same as deciding whether blue or green is your favorite color. Strange to me to see this among Times readers..."sexual orientation" not "sexual preference" has been the terminology used widely for decades among those who agree that one does not simply choose their sexual orientation.
Professor Simon is troubled by this? Then he should really be troubled by a lot of the class action litigation going on today where the sole purpose is extortion to line the pockets of the trial lawyers.
3
Maybe if Thiel had been honest about his life, and not hiding in the closet, it wouldn't have mattered to him. No sympathy for me.
6
It looks like a cat fight in a house of ill repute.
1
Sometimes prominent people seem to invite comment from the press because of their public activities, although Gawker's exposure of Mr. Bollea's sex tape seemed excessive. I could understand Mr. Thiel being angry at Gawker's attention to his private life.
However, in response to comments here (which added much value to this column) I looked up some of Mr. Thiel's other writings. The impression I have now, largely from his own words, is that Mr. Thiel defines freedom as getting his own way in all things, and if that includes the suppression or oppression of other people, he's ok with that.
All of which makes me wonder if his own (non-sexual) behavior is partly what attracted Gawker's spotlight in his direction.
However, in response to comments here (which added much value to this column) I looked up some of Mr. Thiel's other writings. The impression I have now, largely from his own words, is that Mr. Thiel defines freedom as getting his own way in all things, and if that includes the suppression or oppression of other people, he's ok with that.
All of which makes me wonder if his own (non-sexual) behavior is partly what attracted Gawker's spotlight in his direction.
11
Hogan (Bollea) received an extraordinarily large judgement from the jury. They were fooled into thinking that Hogan had somehow suffered psychologically from the release of the sex tape. Nor did his career suffer in any measurable way. The evidence showed no impairment on Bollea's part. The jury was stupid and did not adequately consider all the evidence. But guilt or innocence are sometimes the last thing lawyers and juries worry about.
4
@Java - As you were not on the jury and did not hear the testimony and arguments, how can you possibly speak to "evidence showed" or that the jury "did not adequately consider all the evidence"?
2
There are news reports and legal commentaries regarding the conduct of the trial which evaluated the evidence and the true hard allegedly done to Hogan. For a guy who claimed great emotional distress, he never even visited a counsellor, psychologist or therapist after the video was posted. Nor did his business receipts suffer measurably at the time of the actual trial. Hogan had good lawyers, the defense was poorly prepared, and as a result won the lottery via an impressionable jury with this verdict. Many respected experts In the field of entertainment and libel law were quite surprised by this verdict. You could look it up, right?
1
Mr. Thiel is anti-bullying yet he's a pledged delegate for Donald Trump?
15
Pledged as in his vote at the convention was allocated to Trump based on the outcome of the primary. Doesn't necessarily reflect his personal support for Trump.
3
Who cares if Thiel is a billionaire, or if he supports Trump? The core issue here is that Thiel was outed without his permission, by a publication that has a long history of invasion of privacy. That deserves a strong response. And if the most expedient way to achieve that response - and try to prevent Gawker from doing this in the future - was by financing lawsuits against them, so be it.
Gawker being consistently in the wrong is a far more relevant and important issue than Thiel's bank account or political leanings.
Gawker being consistently in the wrong is a far more relevant and important issue than Thiel's bank account or political leanings.
11
The core issue, actually, is whether billionaires should be able to use the laws to attack freedom of the press simply because they are billionaires.
6
1. Not every form of press speech is protected, and the courts have on multiple occasions ruled that Gawker crossed the line.
2. Most plaintiff's lawsuits require lots of money. There's no evidence that Thiel's cash influenced the outcome of the lawsuit; it simply allowed the challenge to be recognized in the first place.
2. Most plaintiff's lawsuits require lots of money. There's no evidence that Thiel's cash influenced the outcome of the lawsuit; it simply allowed the challenge to be recognized in the first place.
my problem with Thiel, as founder of PayPal, that company doesn't respond or pay up and its takes weeks to settle a small amount, as I noted from many others who have the same problem, guess that's why he moved on?
3
" 'As I’ve said before, I did not ‘out’ Peter Thiel,”' said Mr. Thomas, now business editor at The San Francisco Chronicle. 'I did discuss his sexuality, but it was known to a wide circle who felt that it was not fit for discussion beyond that circle. I thought that attitude was retrograde and homophobic.' "
That is pretty much the definition of outing! Even if Thiel had chosen to share his sexuality with a small group of people, it's up to him and him alone whether and win he wants to make his identity known to a wider group or the public. It is extremely offensive and stupid to decide for yourself that someone else's choices about their own identity are "retrograde and homophobic". People's lives don't have to be an agenda if they don't want them to be.
That is pretty much the definition of outing! Even if Thiel had chosen to share his sexuality with a small group of people, it's up to him and him alone whether and win he wants to make his identity known to a wider group or the public. It is extremely offensive and stupid to decide for yourself that someone else's choices about their own identity are "retrograde and homophobic". People's lives don't have to be an agenda if they don't want them to be.
16
I feel sure that that's exactly how Peter Thiel feels about, say, Bill Clinton. No doubt he's saying the same to Trump even as we speak.
Public intercourse is not fit for public discourse.
2
Had Gawker not done anything wrong, Thiel -despite all his millions- could not have done anything against it. There would be no suit to begin with. This is not a case of a billionaire bringing down a media outlet on a personal vendetta. This is a case of a media outlet bringing down itself, and Thiel just giving the final push. What would have happened if Hogan had gotten the same amount from other sources, like Gofundme.com? Would people be saying that these sources are trying to bring down media outlets for a vengenace?
And Thiel is right on spot when he says “It’s not for me to decide what happens to Gawker. If America rallies around Gawker and decides we want more people to be outed and more sex tapes to be posted without consent, then they will find a way to save Gawker, and I can’t stop it.”
And Thiel is right on spot when he says “It’s not for me to decide what happens to Gawker. If America rallies around Gawker and decides we want more people to be outed and more sex tapes to be posted without consent, then they will find a way to save Gawker, and I can’t stop it.”
8
He funded a team of lawyers to find and help “victims” of the company’s coverage mount cases against Gawker. writes th NY Times.
Is it implying that having video of oneself and another in the privacy of their own abodes is not victimization but is "news" and "journalism". Are these words intended as satire or to insult the reader's intelligence?
Is it implying that having video of oneself and another in the privacy of their own abodes is not victimization but is "news" and "journalism". Are these words intended as satire or to insult the reader's intelligence?
1
Gawker is terrible, but this is scary that one man possess enough power to shut down a publication simply because he doesn't think they're acting the way he thinks they should. It sends a message to other media outlets to watch who and what they're writing stories about. Don't investigate rich people or you'll get shut down.
80
Your over simplification matches Gawkers oversimplified view of the 1st amendment nicely.
Apply your mind and judgment, no such thing as you allege might happened here. And you leave out that a court of law agreed with Mr Bollea's case.
Apply your mind and judgment, no such thing as you allege might happened here. And you leave out that a court of law agreed with Mr Bollea's case.
2
Yeah, not quite. He doesn't think they're "not acting the way he things they should". He thinks they're violating people's rights.
And it's not about "investigating", it's about violating people's privacy, especially areas of the lives of private citizens that are not in the public interest in any way.
And it's not about "investigating", it's about violating people's privacy, especially areas of the lives of private citizens that are not in the public interest in any way.
It's NOT scary when that publication is violating the law (which hasn't been enforced properly, likely due to Gawker's finances that can bend justice).
I believe Mr. Thiel has every right to go after Gawker in any way he can, as Gawker went after him in any way they could. My serious question -- the underlying question -- is why do we have to be wealthy to guard against our own government? Why do we have to wealthy over and above survival expense to be able to have a voice in the law? Is that what America was designed for? Fairness bought? Why is money buying justice, and when does money make the concept of justice unjust?
3
Try being your own lawyer in pursuit of civil justice, and you will see just how important money is in the justice arena. The difficult thing about the law is there is so much of it, and court procedure is as integral to success as the law itself. The end result is it is just another way the one percent takes from the 99 percent.
I hope philanthropic legal assistance takes off and soars.
I hope philanthropic legal assistance takes off and soars.
3
Peter Thiel's internalized homophobia is painful to read about. Being outed as gay ruined his life? Why doesn't he spend his billions to help change the perception that being outed as gay ruins people's lives? The more appropriate response 10 years ago would have been "So I'm gay. Big deal. Get over it."
Even sadder is the profusion of readers' comments here supporting the attitude that being outed is something for which to seek revenge.
Even sadder is the profusion of readers' comments here supporting the attitude that being outed is something for which to seek revenge.
4
Thiel claims this as “one of my greater philanthropic things that I’ve done". $10 million would pay for an awful lot of healthcare or education in say Laos, but i guess its Thiels money to waste as he wants, for a cause without applause.
2
I find it interesting that the article doesn't reference the giant albatross in the room--Palantir.
Mr. Thiel is the co-founder of Palantir. It provides big data analytic support for governments and large businesses. Critics would call the company a private for-profit NSA. Due to its contracts with the CIA, FBI and NSA the company has been valued at over $15 billion.
Gawker has been very critical of Palantir's business strategy and ethics--and rightfully so.
Mr. Thiel is the co-founder of Palantir. It provides big data analytic support for governments and large businesses. Critics would call the company a private for-profit NSA. Due to its contracts with the CIA, FBI and NSA the company has been valued at over $15 billion.
Gawker has been very critical of Palantir's business strategy and ethics--and rightfully so.
3
Gawker and its other media properties are not journalism, and it's great that someone is fighting back against them. Claims that the Thiel/Hogan lawsuit will have a chilling effect on media in general, or debase the First Amendment, aren't informed. Gawker and its founder have knowingly tried to hurt/destroy people for sport and have contributed little or nothing to the public good. Real publications that fight for things that matter have nothing to fear.
4
"Hell hath no fury as a billionaire scorned"
The Shakespearian quality of this entire tawdry affair is fascinating! And troubling, of course. But if anyone believes the rich haven't engaged in this sort of behaviour for millenia, lemme know where you live and I'll help you pry up the rock.
What I find truly interesting is that it seems important to Thiel that the world know that he is the one grinding the axe. It would be easy to blame this on an entire generation that lacks discretion.
But it appears to me more like a criminal who actually got away with the crime but is now disappointed that no one knows he was the perpatrator...
The Shakespearian quality of this entire tawdry affair is fascinating! And troubling, of course. But if anyone believes the rich haven't engaged in this sort of behaviour for millenia, lemme know where you live and I'll help you pry up the rock.
What I find truly interesting is that it seems important to Thiel that the world know that he is the one grinding the axe. It would be easy to blame this on an entire generation that lacks discretion.
But it appears to me more like a criminal who actually got away with the crime but is now disappointed that no one knows he was the perpatrator...
2
Being in the closet is like not getting MMR immunisation. It hurts many other people, and not just the person in it. I applaud Gawker for outing him, and shame on Thiel for being rich and successful and not coming out.
3
Though not included in this article, but reported elsewhere, Scott Adams praised Thiel for his actions. I thought I would never see this day, but apparently Dilbert secretly loves his boss after all.
1
Hilarious how the vast majority of the top comments disparage Thiel because of his political leanings. The "holier than thou" attitude regularly espoused in these comments by Democrats is disgusting to be quite frank. And I don't support Trump at all, far from it actually
Seems like no one can disagree with your political views, but also look past them and read the actual story. Instead people in this country see political views and lock up or immediately begin to attack. Time to face reality: not everyone shares the same views as you
Seems like no one can disagree with your political views, but also look past them and read the actual story. Instead people in this country see political views and lock up or immediately begin to attack. Time to face reality: not everyone shares the same views as you
3
Journalists are rightly outraged. Congress needs to act now to prevent big monied interest from funding lawsuits — if a person doesn’t have the personal wealth necessary to bring his own lawsuit he should NOT be able to sue.
Our legal system depends on the vast majority of potential litigants not having the resources to have their day in court.
https://medium.com/political-moose/justice-for-the-wealthy-6370959e1ff2#...
Our legal system depends on the vast majority of potential litigants not having the resources to have their day in court.
https://medium.com/political-moose/justice-for-the-wealthy-6370959e1ff2#...
"Everyone can start again
Not through love but through revenge"
Lana Del Ray
Not through love but through revenge"
Lana Del Ray
1
If Peter Thiel's candidate becomes president and is able to persuade Congress to pass laws allowing easier access to the courts to pursue libel cases, the wealthy won't need to worry quite so much about an intrusive press. That might have one set of consequences if the public knows less about issues like sexual preferences and practices and a quite different set of consequences if the issues are business practices and political actions.
34
Gawker is the "Press" like the National Enquirer is the Press and the Enquirer has more class.
2
Lindsay Graham, for one, owes his political stature to a litigation financer called the Rutherford Institute.
4
I agree with the judge who ruled that Thiel's backing shouldn't be introduced into court. Is Hulk Hogan's case different based on who's paying his lawyers?
However, I find it hilarious that Thiel, a libertarian, is backing Trump, a protectionist.
However, I find it hilarious that Thiel, a libertarian, is backing Trump, a protectionist.
2
3 Cheers for Peter Thiel !! He is a well - funded Crusader for decency, privacy and frankly -- RIGHTOUSNESS !
Gawker Media is simply the playground Bully that most are afraid to stand up to - I applaud Mr. Thiel's advocacy ...
Gawker Media is simply the playground Bully that most are afraid to stand up to - I applaud Mr. Thiel's advocacy ...
4
In our legal system, people with huge amounts of money almost always win. This means that there is not equal justice for all. That is what we should be talking about.
78
There certainly must be some irony in Mr. Thiel's "concern" for media gossip (that affects him and his rich friends) while at the same time being a pledged delegate for a Presidential candidate -- Donald Trump -- who has repeatedly claimed that President Obama was born in another country. Along with countless other slurs.
Mr. Thiel seems to have no problem as long as his billionaire friends are the ones spreading gossip (or in the case of the man he hopes becomes President - outright lies).
It's a shame the reporter didn't ask him how he reconciles his support of Donald Trump - who spouts any nonsense he pleases - with his faux concern about the gossip that hurts his rich friends.
Mr. Thiel seems to have no problem as long as his billionaire friends are the ones spreading gossip (or in the case of the man he hopes becomes President - outright lies).
It's a shame the reporter didn't ask him how he reconciles his support of Donald Trump - who spouts any nonsense he pleases - with his faux concern about the gossip that hurts his rich friends.
3
What is disconcerting is not that Thiel bankrolls other people's cases. The real horror story here is that representation in the court system we continue to tolerate is so ridiculously expensive that even a "successful" millionaire like Terry Bollea can not afford to finance a potentially successful resolution on his own.
You need to be in the .1% to actually have your day in court. What kind of court is that? One that successfully represents one in a thousand people. Epic fail.
Oh, and the NYT article "outed" Thiel as a Trump supporter. Sexual orientation matters not in the least to me, but this political orientation causes me to dismiss Thiel as an individual. Thoughtful, caring people do not support Trump.
You need to be in the .1% to actually have your day in court. What kind of court is that? One that successfully represents one in a thousand people. Epic fail.
Oh, and the NYT article "outed" Thiel as a Trump supporter. Sexual orientation matters not in the least to me, but this political orientation causes me to dismiss Thiel as an individual. Thoughtful, caring people do not support Trump.
4
No good guys on either side of this case.
May they make each other miserable forever and a day.
May they make each other miserable forever and a day.
1
Funding of civil litigation has been going on for decades. Look at all of the publicly funded "law projects" that exist. Kudos to Mr. Thiel for having the stones to privately fund a litigation project. There are certainly "freedom of speech" litigation projects, that, if properly inclined, would or could have lined up to assist or fund Gawker if they felt that Gawker had any kind of standing. I, through several business endeavors, have personally experienced both sides of this coin. In a balanced analysis, and in my mind, there is NO QUESTION that social media companies must be held accountable for their published materials. They profit from their efforts on the backs of people who otherwise have no power. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from the repercussions of that speech.
2
Thiel is an example of the wealthy ignorant an prejudiced trying to change the world to suit their own views. How about an article about the billionaire who tried to ruin Mother Jones with a frivolous lawsuit? That is another example of injustice in our world.
How exactly is his paying the lawyers fees unjust? Where is the undue influence? No what he did was right the ship and make the checks and balances of our system which has been made very unbalanced by the costs of court cases so that someone who would have no recourse only because of relative poverty could get justice from the court for intentionally abusive attacks made mainly because the attacker was counting on those prohibitive costs to protect him for something he could not ever win in court.
2
The Gawker case is clearly an extreme, but how about another case: Mother Jones exposing Romney's comments in Boca Raton about the 47% "takers". That finished Mitt in 2012. The Mitt supporter in Idahoe then tried to wreck Mother Jones with a frivolous lawsuit. He had money, Mother Jones not so much. So "magic" thinks this is correct? The Mother Jones case shows what the rich think of honest criticism.
1
What a waste of money. The only one who cared was Thiel and Hulk Hogan, and but for these two no one would have thought twice about the leaked tape or story. How can you award damages to a couple of too rich dudes who seek to stick it to another group over a temper tantrum? $140 million in damages that is not only really zero damages, but was injury caused by the so called injured shooting themselves in the foot. They should pay the court for enduring this nonsense.
26
If you didn't care you are a fool. Our freedoms have been taken from us by such people as work at Gawker instilling fear in people with their tactic of abuse feeling secure in knowing very few can afford to hold them to account. The costs of court cases make it so that justice is only available to those who can afford it. That is another of the points that should be cared about here.
6
And assumably you would feel the same way if someone distributed a tape of you having sex, or someone you love? Without your consent? Would you also call that nonsense?
7
I'd bet you'd feel differently if someone had filmed you in such an intimate moment and then posted it on the Internet.
2
This guy is my hero. Gawker is basically in the blackmail biz and should be put out of business along with the rest of the rumor mongering hateful media.
3
Blackmail biz? Can you show proof? Thanks...
Regardless of what you think of Thiel or Gawker, he's right that third-party private financing of a law suit is akin to what every plaintiffs' firm does when working on a contingency basis. The malpractice, product liability and shareholders's bars all operate on such bases. Thiel, the entrepreneur, merely adapted the business model for use in defamation suits, with private individuals rather than equally private law firms taking the financial risk.
This may mean that baseless suits will be filed - but that happens anyway. It means also that plaintiffs with good cause to sue that might otherwise never get their day in court because they cannot afford the attorneys fees, will now obtain a hearing. One assumes that a meritless case will still be a loser.
The problem is that litigation incredibly expensive, thus barring people who should have the opportunity for a legal determination of their grievance from obtaining that hearing. If private firms can work on contingency fees, then people like Thiel should be able to finance a lawsuit, regardless of whether there are first amendment issues at stake, or the legal outcome.
This may mean that baseless suits will be filed - but that happens anyway. It means also that plaintiffs with good cause to sue that might otherwise never get their day in court because they cannot afford the attorneys fees, will now obtain a hearing. One assumes that a meritless case will still be a loser.
The problem is that litigation incredibly expensive, thus barring people who should have the opportunity for a legal determination of their grievance from obtaining that hearing. If private firms can work on contingency fees, then people like Thiel should be able to finance a lawsuit, regardless of whether there are first amendment issues at stake, or the legal outcome.
41
I think it should be clear that getting into court with a paid lawyer has no effect on the result. But it does allow those victims who live in this "free" country to actually exercise one of the rights of that freedom taken from them passive aggressively by the costs now imposed.
2
" Thiel, the entrepreneur, merely adapted the business model for use in defamation suits, with private individuals rather than equally private law firms taking the financial risk."
Unlike a law firm he took extra financial risk by ensuring that any award not come from an insurance company.
Unlike a law firm he took extra financial risk by ensuring that any award not come from an insurance company.
When there is a financial mis-match, they should put them into a courtroom to argue without lawyers present, like a small claims environment, but modified a bit. And no delays.. one shot deal. Then money would be taken out of the equation.
Perhaps Gawker should be put out of business for what they did to Mr. Thiel, among others. Many of us probably wish we had the money to get some justice against those who've wronged us, especially those who've wronged us for profit.
3
So long as the funding of those with deep pockets does not come with strategy, advice, or demands regarding an ongoing case, it's hard to persuasively argue a contravention of first amendment liberties on the part of the funder. Rather, it simply turns up the volume on the victim's bullhorn to approach that of the prurient media/corporate feed.
1
False point. The court and jury decides the merit of the case no matter whose argument is heard. Therefore if he had gone so far as to offer such advice the result would still be legitimate.
Peter Thiel was justified over being offended over Gawker's so-called "outing." In my humble opinion unless someone plans to be intimate with another person, that person's sexual orientation is (or should be) irrelevant. It is certainly is not fodder for public consumption. Let the individual decide whether or not to make such intimate disclosures. Gawker has crossed boundaries that should not have been crossed.
6
Pardon me? LOL.
A libertarian, Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for Donald J. Trump for the 2016 Republican National Convention.
A libertarian, Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for Donald J. Trump for the 2016 Republican National Convention.
1
@Daveindiego - That has nothing to do with Gawker's despicable actions.
It seems to me that too many commentators are complaining because of antagonism towards wealth or issues like which politician this guy supports. The reality is that Thiel helped ensure that an organization that illegally stole private property and posted it without consent was brought to court to be assessed by an independent jury.
With large corporations influencing the media everyday based on nothing other than their profit motive, I am refreshed to know there are individuals like Thiel pushing in another direction, billionaire or not.
With large corporations influencing the media everyday based on nothing other than their profit motive, I am refreshed to know there are individuals like Thiel pushing in another direction, billionaire or not.
3
Gawker deserves all the hate being thrown at them. They've gone out of their way to earn it.
4
Good for Peter Thiel. It's hard to understand how someone so smart is supporting Donald Trump, but I guess we all have our blind spots, brilliant tech billionaires included.
2
The reason I liked Gawker is that they made fun of the big wigs in Silicon Valley who take themselves far too seriously. Seeing people who have billions and want to outsource jobs of their companies to India and China taken down a peg is doing a public service. If you are a libertarian you believe that people should be free to do whatever they want without government interference. Gawker is more libertarian than Peter Thiel since he used the government's legal system to destroy a media outlet. That is a slippery slope for journalism and our democracy. Maybe in the future a billionaire will also sue the New York Times for simply printing the truth.
4
A pretty good lesson for people who think they can injure others with impunity. I like privacy and don't like peeping Tom's. If Thiel had been the only one injured, I doubt he would have done any of this, but Gawker made a big mistake - they injured his friends. I like loyalty too.
53
I did not see that Mr. Bollea is a friend of Mr. Thiel's. I believe Mr. Thiel was referred to as Mr. Bollea's 'benefactor.
That said, while the law experts are correct that this would not change the case, and given that Gawker sounds like a scummy company, Mr. Thiel was still out for revenge. As he himself said (in the article), "It's LESS about revenge...." He didn't say it was NOT out of revenge. There was revenge involved, outcome notwithstanding.
This is still a problem of the very rich using money to ruin others, whether that 'rich' is Gawker or Peter Thiel. Has it now become a case of "the end justifies the means" in our culture? A very slippery slope. Why could Peter Thiel not donate the money openly, since there was no legal reason not to? Could it be that the jury would have been swayed by knowing one rich person was paying the legal bills for another rich person (Bollea, aka Hulk Hogan) to overthrow a THIRD rich...entity? One wonders what that says, that this was done in secrecy. In any case, Justice seems to have been done...in some sense, if not the "spirit of the law" sense. And that's today legal arena, folks!
That said, while the law experts are correct that this would not change the case, and given that Gawker sounds like a scummy company, Mr. Thiel was still out for revenge. As he himself said (in the article), "It's LESS about revenge...." He didn't say it was NOT out of revenge. There was revenge involved, outcome notwithstanding.
This is still a problem of the very rich using money to ruin others, whether that 'rich' is Gawker or Peter Thiel. Has it now become a case of "the end justifies the means" in our culture? A very slippery slope. Why could Peter Thiel not donate the money openly, since there was no legal reason not to? Could it be that the jury would have been swayed by knowing one rich person was paying the legal bills for another rich person (Bollea, aka Hulk Hogan) to overthrow a THIRD rich...entity? One wonders what that says, that this was done in secrecy. In any case, Justice seems to have been done...in some sense, if not the "spirit of the law" sense. And that's today legal arena, folks!
I am not bothered by a Thiel funding lawsuits against Gawker. Some of these comments are so petty ... little people whining that rich people have more power than them! The USA was built on capitalism and rewarding initiative and ambition. How unequal and unfair! Go live in a Marxist country where everyone is equal for crying out loud. A lawsuit either has merit or it does not. If it does not, the plaintiff is subject to sanctions for frivolous litigation. If it has merit, it matters not in the least that the plaintiff's legal fees are paid by a third party.
2
I am constantly appalled at the sneering, gossipy pleasure taken by our society at someone else’s personal preferences and particulars. I would have said “private” preferences and particulars, but that word choice alone bows obliquely and euphemistically to social pressure or sneaks behind some “wink-wink” verbal bush in expressing the thought.
WHY for all the world do others CARE about someone else’s personal inventory???? WHY must we be so critical and demeaning and prejudiced and bigoted and judgmental? What IS it about “difference” that makes such a difference to us that we cannot allow others to choose for themselves and still accept….or at the very least just acknowledge and get out of their way?
Should we discriminate? YES we should! We don’t have child molesters or rapists over for dinner for heaven’s sake. But why such simple personal particulars should be used as a club to demean others, or shun or brand or exclude, or to allow us to self-aggrandizingly wrinkle our noses and stiffly smile as we knowingly comment on “those people” is just beyond me.
To paraphrase Hillel: “If I do not stand up for myself, who will? And if I do not stand up for others, who am I?” What is it about humanity that makes us feel taller by shortening those about us? And what does that say about our humanity in general?
Sad!
WHY for all the world do others CARE about someone else’s personal inventory???? WHY must we be so critical and demeaning and prejudiced and bigoted and judgmental? What IS it about “difference” that makes such a difference to us that we cannot allow others to choose for themselves and still accept….or at the very least just acknowledge and get out of their way?
Should we discriminate? YES we should! We don’t have child molesters or rapists over for dinner for heaven’s sake. But why such simple personal particulars should be used as a club to demean others, or shun or brand or exclude, or to allow us to self-aggrandizingly wrinkle our noses and stiffly smile as we knowingly comment on “those people” is just beyond me.
To paraphrase Hillel: “If I do not stand up for myself, who will? And if I do not stand up for others, who am I?” What is it about humanity that makes us feel taller by shortening those about us? And what does that say about our humanity in general?
Sad!
2
The world needs more people like Thiel and fewer gossip rags, like Gawker.
4
The US needs more gossip rags. The Americans are an entirely too depressed and unhappy a nation. Even Nigeria does better on the happiness scale than America. Click on Gawker and laugh.
I guess spending millions of dollars is a lot easier than saying, "Yeah I'm gay and so what?"
4
Bravo Mr Thiel. Agreed- a very philanthropic investment.
4
what happened to legal prohibitions on "Champerty and Maintenance?"
http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people
If you bother to read the article it actually complementary of Thiel. If that article had been written about me I wold have been, oh, ok.
For somebody to declare that their life is ruined and now need to secretly fund someone else's court battle against a media outlet they have harbored revenge against for 10 years is sad.
Peter should spend his money on therapy and self-help. Look inward. Feel sorry for this guy.
If you bother to read the article it actually complementary of Thiel. If that article had been written about me I wold have been, oh, ok.
For somebody to declare that their life is ruined and now need to secretly fund someone else's court battle against a media outlet they have harbored revenge against for 10 years is sad.
Peter should spend his money on therapy and self-help. Look inward. Feel sorry for this guy.
4
Yes, the article said he was a very smart guy and a savvy investor as well as that he was gay. The author of the article also said he was gay too.
Yeah, I remember reading the same stuff about "The Enquirer" not all that long ago.
I guess when a billionaire has a "hissy fit" about his gender preference being made public then he WILL get his revenge.
But, Mr. Thiel is gay, is he not? Perhaps if he had just had the guts to admit that, as many of the LGBT people I know courageously did, this whole affair wouldn't be necessary, would it?
I guess when a billionaire has a "hissy fit" about his gender preference being made public then he WILL get his revenge.
But, Mr. Thiel is gay, is he not? Perhaps if he had just had the guts to admit that, as many of the LGBT people I know courageously did, this whole affair wouldn't be necessary, would it?
2
What is Gawker and who would bother with it?
A few months ago, at a dinner in NYC, I sat next to a fellow who had just come back from New Zealand, He had met with Peter Theil, who apparently has a house there, to discuss what my dinner chum called "opposition research." His "research" project involved going through Webster Hubbel's garbage cans to get his DNA, in order to prove that Mr. Hubbel was Chelsea Clinton's father.(He already had a speciman of Hilary's DN.)
So yes, the notion that PT is out to destroy reputations of prominent people is not far off.
So yes, the notion that PT is out to destroy reputations of prominent people is not far off.
7
Only the very rich get to say what gets reported? How Libertarian of Thiel.
5
Anyone who backs Donald Trump is ethically bankrupt. That goes for Mr. Thiel.
5
Why is it so horrible to be outed as gay in Silicon Valley? So much so that you would spend millions of dollars for revenge.
4
Critics of Thiel fail to note that Nick Denton has an estimated worth of $117 million and the Gawker corporation a worth of around $80 million. I don't see any criticism of Denton using his money/power to abuse his victims.
Nor do I see any discussion of how Denton's "journalism" seems strangely blind and silent re how America's Rich inflicit massive injury onto the American people. Not exactly the kind of publisher that James Madison had in mind, is he?
Nor do I see any discussion of how Denton's "journalism" seems strangely blind and silent re how America's Rich inflicit massive injury onto the American people. Not exactly the kind of publisher that James Madison had in mind, is he?
76
I feel you haven't peeked at Gawker. It regularly targets the rich, hence Thiel's outrage.
"Target's" is not an adjective that any Press organ should do anything to cause a person to use when talking about them. It bespeaks the sort of prejudice and ill intent one associates with Gawker's postings.
Two wrongs do not make a right. What Gawker did aside, Thiel's actions have a potentially abusive element and are a corruption of our legal system. There is also good reason to suspect Thiel's stated motives.
55
Two wrongs don't make a right. But you fail to acknowledge the key fact here: what Thiel did was perfectly legal and carefully considered.
You're just angry because he happens to be wealthy.
You're just angry because he happens to be wealthy.
1
I think Thiel has been very open about his motives. You just don't like that he found a way to legally work within the system.
Wake up! Our legal system is by and large corrupted. It is "gamed". Go to any civil or criminal court today and sit to witness the game that prosecutors, defenders and judges play in plain sight. It takes money, like being able to pay for a sharp lawyer, to get competent representation. Even then, one may lose the game. Thiel is the banker at 0%.
2
Sure looks like revenge to me. If it didn't affect Thiel personally, no problem for Gawker.
Justice is for the rich; the rest of us, not so much.
Peter, how about $10 million for the "innocence project?"
Justice is for the rich; the rest of us, not so much.
Peter, how about $10 million for the "innocence project?"
5
If you read the article you'll see that Thiel generously donates to many causes. This is one of them.
1
He supports Trump who called the protesters outside his Anaheim, California, rally, all thugs, yesterday. What a fellow. Thank you Gawker for getting under this pompous and venomous billionaire's thin skin.
He plays the Devil and the Devil's advocate to confuse the populace. You fall for him. I won't.
I will try very hard, for a moment, to ignore the fact that Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for DJT. Looking at this story as one about a guy getting really mad that a gossip site outed him and then having the bucks to seek revenge on that site, I am not terribly bothered. Gawker appears to have messed with the wrong guy. I think the reason I am not so bothered is the fact that Mr. Thiel was personally targeted and feels he was harmed by Gawker. I say, go for it. Now if he starts targeting every newspaper and/or gossip site that he simply doesn't like, then no, I'm not OK with that.
2
It's marketing and media - the nature of Gawker's business. Peter Thiel's reputation, both good and bad precedes him...no surprise there. Billionaires exercising their 'capital muscle' - from Adelson, to Bezos, their egos are quite large. I think the event is quite comical - picturing Hulk Hogan's cartoonlike image in any tape brings a smile.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it exposes the deep flaws of our justice system. You need series money to play in court system and 99.9%of the people will never get a fair shake.
7
The name of the game in US courts is to exhaust the other party financially. Guilt or Innocence has little to nothing to do with how you are treated in the Courts.
I applaud the Billionaire if he helped Hogan to overcome the financial hurdle to get a fair hearing in court, something most people can't afford.
I applaud the Billionaire if he helped Hogan to overcome the financial hurdle to get a fair hearing in court, something most people can't afford.
73
You are 100% correct, the US courts just like everything else here are all about money.
2
The debilitating expenses of court cases are the lawyers and outside consultants not the Court filing fees.
Good for him. I hope he puts it out of business. By the way, billionaires suing media outlets isn't in and of itself a threat to anything. It's up to the courts to decide the cases.
6
BRAVO, MR THIEL!
Here's hoping other Internet Billionaires will also help fight unrestricted damaging salacious websites that publish whatever they want to grab attention and make themselves rich. The Bleeding First Amendment people seem to forget that Amendment was intended to protect political speech, not spread more and more porn and shaming on the internet NOT in the public interest except for some low lifes who hate others. One can ask these people, do the bullies attacking children and other have the right to do so? Is bullying an 16 year old to suicide protected speech?
An important marker has been laid. Let's hope for more.
Here's hoping other Internet Billionaires will also help fight unrestricted damaging salacious websites that publish whatever they want to grab attention and make themselves rich. The Bleeding First Amendment people seem to forget that Amendment was intended to protect political speech, not spread more and more porn and shaming on the internet NOT in the public interest except for some low lifes who hate others. One can ask these people, do the bullies attacking children and other have the right to do so? Is bullying an 16 year old to suicide protected speech?
An important marker has been laid. Let's hope for more.
12
chris, well said. "News" and "journalism" are one thing, invasions of privacy and threats another.
1
Why do you support limits on the First Amendment when I'll bet a buck and a beer you're a Bleeding Second Amendment person who considers any suggestion of reasonable gun control as a liberal assault on our Constitution?
1
And it has not been protecting political speech. This man Thiel is in politics and is changing the landscape of this country with his money. That's his prerogative. But being in public life he's not immune. Since Thiel is an influence peddler in politics, it is all the more imperative, for everyone to support Gawker and assert he is fair game. Why didn't he sue on his own behalf? He is surreptitious and stealthy in his shenanigans.
1
Did Mr. Thiel get a return on his investment? If so, I wonder when Goldman Sachs will be getting into the lawsuit backing market.
4
I don't believe any of this is real (not Gawker, Hulk Hogan, Peter Thiel.) I think it was all fabricated so someone could make a Hollywood movie about it.
5
give this man a monte christo
For those of you commenting that it's disgusting that you can rely on billionaires like Peter Thiel with a possible grudge to fund this expensive lawsuit into what is frankly a borderline and difficult legal issue, why are you not unhappy with the fact that a giant finance firm was able to plunge $100 million into Gawker to help defend the suit?
The best of all worlds of course is one where everyone as access to justice independent of the litigants' financial resources. But in our world, this is not a shameful thing. Thiel is funding a legal war against a media giant, not some neighborhood newspaper in Queens. No injustice is being committed here by his offering support.
The best of all worlds of course is one where everyone as access to justice independent of the litigants' financial resources. But in our world, this is not a shameful thing. Thiel is funding a legal war against a media giant, not some neighborhood newspaper in Queens. No injustice is being committed here by his offering support.
77
This is the same (Stanford Law graduate) guy who urges "young boys" to quit school in order to join his "incubator" in San Francisco...
You may draw your own inferences from such arrogance.....
You may draw your own inferences from such arrogance.....
5
where do you see homoxesuality? He tells this to ALL, not just "young boys" (who are actually not minors, as you imply). Are you a paid agent of Gawker?
3
Thiel doesn't invite any "young boys". The young men (and women) who participate in his incubators are generally in their early 20s. And it's pretty obvious what your implication was; that's both homophobic and asinine.
5
Peter Thiel sounds like a very cheery person to invite to holiday parties and bar mitzvas.
3
Nothing sinister here. A moneyed person or group enabling the leveling of the playing field that is the legal system. How is it different from the way in which the NAACP, ACLU, or the NRA search out the most perfect case to develop and finance through the courts?
7
Bruce Springsteen once said... 'The poor man wants to be rich, and the rich man wants to be king."
In the new America super-wealthy individuals run the show.
In the new America super-wealthy individuals run the show.
6
Thank you Peter! Freedom of speech and the right to privacy (both important libertarian ideals) CAN co-exist. Unfortunately some people developed a Jerry Springer-like obsession with what goes on in other people's bedrooms. Enough! Companies like Gawker who profit handsomely from our private lives need to be flushed down the toilet where their "journalism" belong.
9
Both Thiel and some commenters here allege Gawker "destroyed lives." Before we buy that, perhaps someone should investigate? Whose life was "destroyed" and how? A gross exaggeration, perhaps?
16
you are saying that the people who were shown on the site having sex in the privacy of their homes were not hurt? Are you saying the posting of these videos was "journalism"?
2
Chris, it's easy to sit back and anonymously question whether someone's life was affected or destroyed. For all we know you're not even a man and your name isn't Chris.
The point is, there are probably many many things about you that you wouldn't want publicly mentioned. I think having an affair and being outed as gay qualify as personal.
All Thiel did was enable one person to get in to court and seek damages for it. He happened to have won. Deal with it
The point is, there are probably many many things about you that you wouldn't want publicly mentioned. I think having an affair and being outed as gay qualify as personal.
All Thiel did was enable one person to get in to court and seek damages for it. He happened to have won. Deal with it
3
Boy, somebody sure got fed a spoonful of bitter.
5
bitter, party of 1!!
1
How does a libertarian vote for Trump who is anything but a libertarian? Is he voting for Trump because he is in the Billionaires Club?
6
being a "pledged delegate" means you need to vote how your constituency voted, not necessarily the way you wan to. Even if Thiel did not personally support him he would still have to vote for him in at the convention.
1
I don't care about Gawker's impending demise, and think they have done some pretty awful click-baiting for profit over the years. I do care that one person, which will no doubt become a growing number of wealthy individuals, have decided that what offends them personally should be removed from the public sphere. What lawsuits are being supported by him, and against who? Some will say that it is his money, and it is, but his money isn't supposed to mean he gets a leg up on engaging in payback through the court system based on his sense of feeling wronged. This guy is no hero, he's just a bully slamming it out with another bully while using surrogates. Nothing but rich people playing, and it will be everyone else who has to deal with the fallout. Also, destroying Gawker will only create 100K, more keenly focused, little Gawkers. It's how the internet works.
100
renee, the court decided in the end. Thiel only provided money that helped Hogan make his case. Even without that money Hogan would probably have been able to make his case. This is the irony of all that money and support. He would have been able to win his court case regardless.
2
I understand your point of view but your probably are not gay. Outing people is a vicious and potentially highly damaging thing to do. To out someone and damage their privacy, their career with people who won't hire them because of prejudice, their family relationships with family who will reject them because they are gay (and yes that is what happens when we are outed) is a horrible thing to do. Thiel was one of the few gay people with the resources to fight back. He wasn't fighting back as a billionaire, but as a wounded and shamed gay man. And he stood up and was tough enough to fight back and win. It will stop others in the future. He is an absolute hero to us.
2
His sexual preference, or Hogan's sex tapes are both unfit for "public sphere", and blatant invasions of privacy. Speaking of Thiel's preference as if it were dirty and perverse can also be construed as hate speech. We haven't even spoke about the peephole in the hotel.
2
How about: "I saw Gawker //replace with Trump //pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest.”
4
Owen Thomas cannot reconcile his claim to believe Peter Thiel was out with his belief that writing about it was newsworthy.
1
Gawker is a Left-wing shill site that has attacked anyone that does not share their twisted and failed ideology while protecting the corrupt and incompetent that do It would be a social good to bring about its death.
4
Thiel went after Gawker because it is perceived as left wing instead of the stated reason that it outed him. He was already out in Silicon Valley.
1
Say what you want about Thiel and his politics but I applaud him here. Gawker and their kind represent so much of what disappoints me about human behavior.
97
At last journos using 'freedom of speech' to earn page views face heat. Good work Thiel.
1
All that Thiel has done is embittered himself and make himself look petty.
If a wrong has been done them people recognize it as such, and the only sane response is dignified silence.
If a wrong has been done them people recognize it as such, and the only sane response is dignified silence.
3
That's insane. The civil court system was designed explicitly to right wrongs of this nature. It makes no sense to say "They wronged me so bad that I'll just stay silent!" That allows companies to do whatever they want because there are no repercussions.
1
Some people in this country have too much money.
How do you know when incomes at the top are too high?
When some people finance the law suits of other people.
How do you know when incomes at the top are too high?
When some people finance the law suits of other people.
10
so pro bono work should stop too?
2
If a liberal, like George Soros, stuck up for gay people getting exposed against their will on a news rag, he'd be labeled a hero. But because Thiel supports Trump is is labeled as evil. Be fair people. Thiel did us all a favor and is a hero here. Thank you Mr. Thiel. You got nothing out of this, but the people did.
10
How a seemingly smart guy like Theil can support Trump is a total mystery. Trump in The White House would jeopardize the entire planet.
14
Does anyone else find it ironic that a Libertarian used the (governmental) legal system to attack freedom of the press? Yes, he's a Trump supporter.
249
Hardly an attack on freedom of the press. The question that was before the jury was, simply put, where is the line between news and "none of your business". I'm glad that someone with substantial money is interested in leveling the playing field. The legal system WAS used, but not in the way you imply. This case would never have been before a jury because a deep pocketed bully would have made it impossible for anyone of lesser financial means.
Our voyeuristic society wants a front row seat to the most personal moments of everyone else's lives, perhaps to live vicariously or feel a little bit better about their own off balance lives. That's the niche that soap's used to fill, but of course our bigger, faster, better society has an insatiable appetite. Enter paparazzi and all their get the sordid story at any cost ilk.
Be careful, the next invasion could be of your privacy.
Our voyeuristic society wants a front row seat to the most personal moments of everyone else's lives, perhaps to live vicariously or feel a little bit better about their own off balance lives. That's the niche that soap's used to fill, but of course our bigger, faster, better society has an insatiable appetite. Enter paparazzi and all their get the sordid story at any cost ilk.
Be careful, the next invasion could be of your privacy.
3
No. It would be ironic if Thiel had called for a government agency to scrutinize the press... but he hasn't. Very few libertarians believe that there shouldn't be a court system in which individual can sue those who harm them.
2
Uhhh....suing someone for liable is different than wasteful government programs. Just so you know: Federal welfare spending alone totals more than $14,848 for every poor man, woman, and child in this country.
I understand why Thiel thought Gawker was bullying and wrong for outing people's private sexual activities.
But he's a Trump delegate? Seriously? Isn't the entire Trump ethos about bullying and threatening anyone who disagrees with him?
But he's a Trump delegate? Seriously? Isn't the entire Trump ethos about bullying and threatening anyone who disagrees with him?
21
Peter Thiel v. Nick Denton? Think I'd rather watch Alexis and Krystle in that lily pond again.
3
All that money, all those resources, and this is how he chooses to spend his time. How pitiful.
15
Well played, Sir.
2
And what if it WAS motivated by revenge?
3
When all is said and done, Denton is simply a voyeur getting his kicks, and money of course, from preying on others. Although it may turn out to be legal in many cases, it is morally reprehensible. And, given that he does make money, that speaks loudly to the prurient interests of the American public.
1
Gawker ruined many people's lives and reputation, ruthlessly. Thiel's financial backing in this lawsuit is Karma, and justice.
119
Whose lives did Gawker ruin?
2
I find the explanation of Owen Thomas, who outed Thiel, disgusting. Thomas claims that he didn’t really out Thiel because Thiel’s close inner circle already knew he was gay (so if anyone knows you’re gay, you’re technically not “out”??). Thomas further claims that he felt that Thiel’s group of friends not discussing it publicly “was retrograde and homophobic.” I can understand that someone doesn’t own up to their past mistakes, but claiming he outed Thiel to fight “homophobia,” as if he’s some kind of hero, is repulsive. Gawker deserves everything they have coming to them.
7
As Bob Dylan said, money doesn't talk, it swears.
4
If bullies thought they would get bloody noses they would think twice before bullying. This is good.
7
Go Peter
3
How differently does this article read if you take out the one line that Thiel is a pledged delegate for Trump? I have no use for Trump, but really, why is that line in the article at all?
15
excellent point - WaPo hates business (which is hilarious given its ownership) and in particular hates successful conservatives & Trump. I'm sure they want to denigrate Theil by association
The Trump supporter mention gives context to Thiel's self-centred MO
I thought Thiel was simply financing a lawsuit. Which is lawful. Gawker published a stolen tape, taking advantage of the victim's celebrity. If Thiel was also offended then it gives him a more motivation. It is still legal and time honored for one wronged individual to support another. As for Thiel's political views, they are amateurish, unreasoned and irrational.
2
I don't think the tape was stolen, I think that Hulks friend sold it to Gawker.
Remember, the guy who slept with his friends wife got 140 million dollars because a billionaire funded his case.
Gross.
Remember, the guy who slept with his friends wife got 140 million dollars because a billionaire funded his case.
Gross.
2
All is fair in love and war. The court room is the modern battle field and money is the weapon as well as the major factor in determining the winner. Without financial backing such as this, the moneyed interests will always win. We need more of the Peter Thiels to push forward in the war against the Royalists of today whether they are the recognized low-lives such as Gawker or the self proclaimed winners such as wall street and corporate America.
4
I can almost not imagine a worse infringement of privacy than outing someone or publishing their sex tape. What an effective way of ruining someone's relationship with relatives and friends and possibly also their work life. I don't know anything about either Thiel or Hogan's private life and don't care enough about it to use google, but from reading the comments I gather that Thiel is a Trump supporter and Hogan is apparently quite public with his sex life already. Since when should that have any bearing on a court decision? Who stands to gain anything from having something like this, intensely private, completely irrelevant to anyone but themselves and their partners, published in a major media outlet? Where is the general publics interest in knowing about this? Is there anything in this but potential harm?
The only thing I find chilling here is that you would need to be / have the backing of a billionaire to win this kind of fight. Shouldn't our justice system be one area devoid of 'free market'? Why do we still let a person's or a company's monetary worth determine if they are innocent or not ? Even Game of Thrones-style duels and witch drownings seem more efficient in comparison.
The only thing I find chilling here is that you would need to be / have the backing of a billionaire to win this kind of fight. Shouldn't our justice system be one area devoid of 'free market'? Why do we still let a person's or a company's monetary worth determine if they are innocent or not ? Even Game of Thrones-style duels and witch drownings seem more efficient in comparison.
8
Personally, I think it should be separated which candidate Peter Thiel supports from his "role" in the Gawker case.
I don't care about videos regarding Hulk Hogan's or other peoples private life. I really don't want to see that and I don't want to validate such sites.
Aside from the legal consequences to show videos without the permission of the persons involved, it is up to anybody to use/support websites like Gawker or others and live with it.
I don't care about videos regarding Hulk Hogan's or other peoples private life. I really don't want to see that and I don't want to validate such sites.
Aside from the legal consequences to show videos without the permission of the persons involved, it is up to anybody to use/support websites like Gawker or others and live with it.
Anyone who has been there knows the legal system works mostly for wealthy people that can afford to withstand the financial strain of prevailing against the usual bully type. Gawker and similar trash serve no purpose in feeding the public appetite for nasty and hurtful gossip at the expense of ruined lives.
1
I think by supporting Trump, Mr. Tjiel has the label of a racist xenophobe and a misogynist. That is really strange. Billionaires controlling our courts and freedom of the press is really scary.
8
I don't understand this idea that revealing someone as a homosexual in some way is negative. Is there something wrong with being a homosexual? I'm heterosexual and am in no way embarrassed by that fact being revealed to anyone. Why do queer people such as this Thiel have any legal grounds for suing someone just because they publicized what and who they are? Unless he isn't a homosexual and is insulted by being called one, what legal grounds does he have for this vindictive legal action?
10
He doesn't need legal grounds. Hulk Hogan needs legal grounds. All Thiel needs (and has) is money. Thiel is allowed to fund the lawsuit for any reason he wants. If your neighbor wants to sue someone but can't afford it, you can offer to pay your neighbor's legal fees out of friendship, personal interest, or boredom. You need a legal claim to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit, but you don't need a claim to pay someone else's lawyers.
HMichaelH.... Being homosexual (different) has enabled bullies throughout time to attack, kill, burn, hang, arrest, terminate employment, deny housing, refuse service. Is your life so privileged that you cannot understand that even with limited recent progress in some communities... gay people have spent a lifetime of discrimination? Mr. Thiel may have been upset about the sharing of his private life, but he was more upset about the exposure of his friends. He may be a billionaire, but they are not. If you were in AA, and a trash journalist decided to out you and your AA friends, and some of those friends lost their jobs... would you not be angry that the personal lives of you and your friends were now subject to public judgments? I applaud Mr. Thiel for what he has done, and welcome anyone who will help the most vulnerable in the community stop bullies.
Please don't be coy. Everyone knows that being homosexual carried significantly greater stigma in 2007. Mr. Thiel is also supporting the right of proud heterosexual Hulk Hogan to retain some zone of privacy. Do we really believe that no one deserves that any longer? Or is privacy just for women who want abortions? (See Roe v. Wade.)
With regard to outing people, for a media outlet to not discuss someone's private life when they would if that person were straight, that amounts to a double standard. There shouldn't be two standard when it comes to respecting that.
2
Only a juvenile, voyeuristic, Peeping Tom would "care" about another person's "sexuality."
1
Good for him. I was a journalist for 20+ years, and there is a distinct difference between freedom of the press and malicious, libelous gossip. If that takes a series of well-funded court decisions to make clear, then so be it.
17
What was the libel? They said he was gay, and indeed, he is gay.
2
Chris, I guess what you didn't learn as a journalist is that for gossip to be "malicious" or "libelous," it needs to be untrue.
1
So why didn't Thiel sue for libel?
1
The sad truth is.... There are two types of law. Those who have money and those who don't. My wife is permanently disabled because her x broke into her house and threw a ladder in her. She had been in a lawsuit for years . Her x is worth millions he can afford to drag it on. We have to come up with
Money for depositions expert witnesses etc. and we have simply ran out of money. So she won't have a choice but to settle. So there is a difference in law weather spoken or not. The wealthier always wins in the long run
Money for depositions expert witnesses etc. and we have simply ran out of money. So she won't have a choice but to settle. So there is a difference in law weather spoken or not. The wealthier always wins in the long run
17
Will Mr. Thiel sue us readers for our comments if we don't agree with him? I would bet my last dime that Trump is also involved in this case. They are two of a kind. Indeed there is a case for arguing that the millionaires & billionaires are making their own laws and getting away with it and this is a prime example of that.
I say Mr. Thiel, will you donate $10 Million to me to help get money out of politics?
I say Mr. Thiel, will you donate $10 Million to me to help get money out of politics?
12
Someday soon a high-school dropout, whose life hasn't turned out the way he/she thought it would when taking Thiel's advice to drop out and "start a company", is going to round up some of the other not-quite-Gateses who did the same and go find a plaintiffs' lawyer to file a class action against this Silicon Valley Really Smart Guy and lighten him of some of his billions.
That would be some "hard tech."
That would be some "hard tech."
9
I'm sure all of the recipients sign iron-clad agreements when they accept their funding.
I can't imagine why anybody would want to fund children dropping out of school. It's bizarre and Silicon Valley already generates a wasteland of 'didn't quite make its'. How does it benefit society for very intelligent people not to have the credentials to get jobs? Most people aren't cut out to run their own companies, even if they are talented in other ways. Finally, floating cities beyond the reach of governments, are you kidding??? It seems to me that Thiel hasn't figured out that no matter where you go, there you are. Sheesh!
2
As a retired lawyer, former journalist, and unabashed liberal and egalitarian, the most troubling thing about this whole affair is that it starkly illustrates the most fundamental flaw in our "system of justice." Whether the case is civil or criminal, the key to the courthouse door is the dollar bill. Until we can say that everybody, rich or poor, has access to the same resources to plead his case, then "system of justice" is a misnomer; we have only a system of laws, and that system heavily favors the wealthy.
103
Have you actually seen what Gawker does? Believe me, this is the media industry's version of Bill Gates trying to rid the world of malaria. Applause is in order. Or, if you prefer, yay rich people!
Seriously people. What does being a Libertarian have to do with this whole thing? These people apparently were harmed by this web site posting things about them they didn't want known. They weren't breaking the law. It was no one business. In fact our current president has decided they can get married to each other. Had any organization done the same to one of my kids or family I could only hope I had the money etc. to exact revenge. If this person was a liberal progressive you all would be saying good job. You were wronged.
13
Just a little FYI, since you seem to lack the "I" (information) part, jacrane:
It was not "our current president" but the conservative, Republican-packed Supreme Court that "decided they can get married to each other."
Out of curiosity, what part of the First Amendment -- "or freedom of the press," -- don't you like?
It was not "our current president" but the conservative, Republican-packed Supreme Court that "decided they can get married to each other."
Out of curiosity, what part of the First Amendment -- "or freedom of the press," -- don't you like?
2
"If this person was a liberal progressive you all would be saying good job."
If you couldn't bait the libruls, you'd be mute. I score that a draw.
If you couldn't bait the libruls, you'd be mute. I score that a draw.
This is one of those things where I don't know if Mr. Thiel is doing anything wrong in this specific case, but I can see where very easily, this could instead be done for much more nefarious purposes. So in practice I'm not against this one case, but I'd have to say I'm against this in theory, and likely in general. And as capital is accumulated amongst a ruling class that has the resources to do this sort of thing, this is one more way they can see to it that their particular needs are met. Is this that different from the Koch brothers funding of ALEC for legislation that they themselves prefer? Just one more way for the elite to consolidate power?
30
People are unwilling to think for themselves, as it causes stress. This is a well known fact. In that case, others will always fill the void, and tell them what to think. This is not nefarious, as it becomes instantly irrelevant when people choose to think for themselves. It would be nefarious if the average person were mentally handicapped, but it's unlikely we will agree with that as being a fact of life.
Gawker exists because, as a society, we are Gawker -- that's what we've become in our celebrity-obsessed society. Thiel would better spend the $10mm on the couch asking why he still cares so much that his sexually was written about.
Or why he backs someone as uniquely unqualified as The Donald.
Or why he backs someone as uniquely unqualified as The Donald.
26
pretty standard leftie response - you know better than anyone else how they should spend their money and if they support someone or something you don't like, they are fools
1
I don't recall anyone being upset at litigation financing when the ACLU steps in to fund any number of Davids up against institutional Goliaths.
This is nothing new.
If it is wrong that deep pockets tilt the scales in law, and they certainly do, then leveling the filed can only serve the public interest. If both sides are lawyered up to the hilt, then isn't there a lesser chance of one side being railroaded?
so many people are saying "it's not fair", but how would "Unfinanced Private Citizen v. Giant Media Company" be any more fair? Or should big organizations be required to spend no more on their defense than the plaintiffs spend in pursuing them?
This is nothing new.
If it is wrong that deep pockets tilt the scales in law, and they certainly do, then leveling the filed can only serve the public interest. If both sides are lawyered up to the hilt, then isn't there a lesser chance of one side being railroaded?
so many people are saying "it's not fair", but how would "Unfinanced Private Citizen v. Giant Media Company" be any more fair? Or should big organizations be required to spend no more on their defense than the plaintiffs spend in pursuing them?
7
"I don't recall anyone being upset at litigation financing when the ACLU steps in"
Really? In 1988, George H. W. Bush was careful to portray his opponent, Michael Dukakis, as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU." Every chance he got.
Out my way, the ACLU is considered a hate group. Yours?
Really? In 1988, George H. W. Bush was careful to portray his opponent, Michael Dukakis, as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU." Every chance he got.
Out my way, the ACLU is considered a hate group. Yours?
1
Gawker is a sleazy operation even for an internet gossip site. They are not journalists and not providing any kind of service to the already grossly oversaturated celebrity market. The fact that under oath one of the founders testified that anyone over the age of 3 was fair game shows their vile underbelly. Thiel has risen in my estimation by fighting them. He should be respected not derided.
13
I have no problem with Thiel financing Hulk's suit. Gawker is a big bully with a gigantic pulpit and the ability to hurt people with the millions of eyeballs it atteacta. All Thiel did was help level the playing field by giving Hulk access to the American judicial system so he could have his day in court, something that is near impossible for individuals but is no problem for well-funded media companies like Gawker who use the court system for their own benefit but then cry foul when someone gets some help to gain the same access. It is a shame that someone who was violated in the way Hulk was had to get outside help to fight back against Gawker. Thiel did a good service here.
I actually generally like Gawker and read it daily. They have done a great service with a number of their stories. But, what they did to Hulk and the media executive they outed last year was revolting and I am glad they got slapped here.
I actually generally like Gawker and read it daily. They have done a great service with a number of their stories. But, what they did to Hulk and the media executive they outed last year was revolting and I am glad they got slapped here.
143
A man worth millions needed the pockets of a billionaire to make this happen?
I feel the same. I'm a daily Gawker/Jezebel junkie, and while a lot of it is empty gossip they do cover some important stuff and call attention to major issues.
But there are times they drop the ball, and this was one of them. I still don't get how Jezebel can decry the hacking and spreading of nude photos of female celebrities (as they should), but then Gawker insists that it did nothing wrong by publishing Hulk Hogan's sex tape. That is a double-standard, no one deserves to have their privacy exposed like that when it has no impact on the public. Hogan is well within his right to sue, and there is nothing wrong with Mr. Thiel helping him. Exposing someone as gay before they're ready to come out is not okay.
But there are times they drop the ball, and this was one of them. I still don't get how Jezebel can decry the hacking and spreading of nude photos of female celebrities (as they should), but then Gawker insists that it did nothing wrong by publishing Hulk Hogan's sex tape. That is a double-standard, no one deserves to have their privacy exposed like that when it has no impact on the public. Hogan is well within his right to sue, and there is nothing wrong with Mr. Thiel helping him. Exposing someone as gay before they're ready to come out is not okay.
1
The Hulk had access to the American judicial system, just like everyone else. If you're going to say that people get to access the judicial system only on the whim of angry billionaires, we have some real problems in the system.
I don't like Gawker either. But Thiel doesn't get to wipe out media outlets with his billions, that's how you get Russia.
I don't like Gawker either. But Thiel doesn't get to wipe out media outlets with his billions, that's how you get Russia.
"Mr. Thiel ... said he did not believe his actions were contradictory. 'I refuse to believe that journalism means massive privacy violations,' he said. 'I think much more highly of journalists than that.'"
In case anyone thought there was any good motive here...
The same man financing lawsuits against journalists who invade privacy made billions from Facebook. But at least Facebook represents a (mostly) benign and voluntary loss of our privacy. Something buried in this story is more significant:
"He also co-founded the secretive data-crunching start-up Palantir..."
The name "Palantir" comes from the magical seeing stones in "Lord of the Rings," used by the Dark Lord to monitor his enemies. What exactly Palantir does is secret, but they're in the business of mining and aggregating data about people and selling it to the government's "intelligence community."
Palantir's CEO claims that making government intrusions of privacy more effective and efficient will lead to the government leaving innocent people alone. The reality is that Palantir is an enemy of privacy that exists to increase the government's capacity for not leaving people alone.
Mr. Thiel calls himself a "libertarian." By that he apparently means that privacy is a good thing for powerful wealthy people such as himself, who can afford it. He's willing to pay for someone's else privacy, so long as it serves his ulterior motive. But the privacy of the powerless is just another commodity to be bought and sold.
In case anyone thought there was any good motive here...
The same man financing lawsuits against journalists who invade privacy made billions from Facebook. But at least Facebook represents a (mostly) benign and voluntary loss of our privacy. Something buried in this story is more significant:
"He also co-founded the secretive data-crunching start-up Palantir..."
The name "Palantir" comes from the magical seeing stones in "Lord of the Rings," used by the Dark Lord to monitor his enemies. What exactly Palantir does is secret, but they're in the business of mining and aggregating data about people and selling it to the government's "intelligence community."
Palantir's CEO claims that making government intrusions of privacy more effective and efficient will lead to the government leaving innocent people alone. The reality is that Palantir is an enemy of privacy that exists to increase the government's capacity for not leaving people alone.
Mr. Thiel calls himself a "libertarian." By that he apparently means that privacy is a good thing for powerful wealthy people such as himself, who can afford it. He's willing to pay for someone's else privacy, so long as it serves his ulterior motive. But the privacy of the powerless is just another commodity to be bought and sold.
4
His backing Hulk Hogan isn't the issue - he's just providing funding. Journalists should be able to express themselves but not at any cost. We live in a civil society, and everyone should use judgement in deciding what to write and publish. The internet has an element which refuses to respect those boundaries. When this happens, the courts step in. But one needs money to litigate.
As long as the courts are incorruptible, then we have a system suitable for a civil society. The big problem: the poor can't fight the rich in court.
As long as the courts are incorruptible, then we have a system suitable for a civil society. The big problem: the poor can't fight the rich in court.
This case raises two important points; privacy and privilege. Both issues are in a state of crisis in the US.
Mr Thiel demonstrates in this case, the privilege that wealth confers on those who wield it. We don't sanction 'vigilante violence'; I think 'vigilante justice' is just as abhorrent.
We reserve the notion of meting out "punishment" to duly appointed and theoretically accountable legally sanctioned "authorities". To whom is Mr Thiel accountable? No one. He is but one more victim of privacy violation.
What's at issue, is the right to privacy, which is regularly violated by gutter trash publications like Gawker, and by the way, a cottage industry in the UK, from where Nick Denton hails.
The UK tabloids are of the same ilk, and the business model very much is to destroy people's lives, selling their good names for a profit on the way down, and then buying into their rehabilitation on the way up as they rebuild the people they've destroyed. It's evil. Its what gave us Rupert Murdoch and News Corp, and as a society, we still don't know how to deal with it.
On the other hand, the second issue is access to the courts to address this and other types of wantonly criminal conduct.
The courts function for the benefit of the practitioners; lawyers, judges, prosecutors, & all those members of the legal and legal support community. Again, another industry hijacked by corruption, that regularly holds the rest of society hostage to their money mad profit seeking conduct.
Mr Thiel demonstrates in this case, the privilege that wealth confers on those who wield it. We don't sanction 'vigilante violence'; I think 'vigilante justice' is just as abhorrent.
We reserve the notion of meting out "punishment" to duly appointed and theoretically accountable legally sanctioned "authorities". To whom is Mr Thiel accountable? No one. He is but one more victim of privacy violation.
What's at issue, is the right to privacy, which is regularly violated by gutter trash publications like Gawker, and by the way, a cottage industry in the UK, from where Nick Denton hails.
The UK tabloids are of the same ilk, and the business model very much is to destroy people's lives, selling their good names for a profit on the way down, and then buying into their rehabilitation on the way up as they rebuild the people they've destroyed. It's evil. Its what gave us Rupert Murdoch and News Corp, and as a society, we still don't know how to deal with it.
On the other hand, the second issue is access to the courts to address this and other types of wantonly criminal conduct.
The courts function for the benefit of the practitioners; lawyers, judges, prosecutors, & all those members of the legal and legal support community. Again, another industry hijacked by corruption, that regularly holds the rest of society hostage to their money mad profit seeking conduct.
1
The real issue here is disclosure, or more precisely the lack thereof. The stealthy way in which the lawsuit was financed undermines the administration of justice. If other remote interests are going to be vindicated in a lawsuit, the adversely affected party and the adjudicators ought to know about them and throw them in the total mix.
2
I do not know Mr. Thiel or Gawker or about this particular case, but lot of our media does cross the line without any decency, decorum,respect for privacy and others' private lives...which is what has given us our current political climate with all kinds of innuendos, allegations, rumors, gossip and pretty horrible things being thrown at candidates by other candidates (mostly male candidates).
I did not care how many women Bill Clinton slept with, as long there was no abuse of power, no minors involved, no abuse of the women and no deviance. If these adult women, no matter how many years younger than him, choose to sleep with him, knowing he is a Governor, running for the Presidency and/or married, it is none of our business! Even his short affair with Monica Lewinsky is none of our business. The media has made it their business, and a profitable one, by going after people's lives in ways that are not only invasive, intrusive and totally cruel...but irrelevant to our civic responsibilities. Even in the Monica Lewinsky issue it is the responsibility of the National Security agencies to investigate discreetly to make sure Monica is not a spy, and no classified information was leaked or stolen. Once they find there are no such violations it is none of our business.
Our media thrives on cheap scandals, gossip, rumors and ruining successful people, while letting rogues who commit financial crimes and crimes against humanity go free. Lets turn the camera on the media itself.
I did not care how many women Bill Clinton slept with, as long there was no abuse of power, no minors involved, no abuse of the women and no deviance. If these adult women, no matter how many years younger than him, choose to sleep with him, knowing he is a Governor, running for the Presidency and/or married, it is none of our business! Even his short affair with Monica Lewinsky is none of our business. The media has made it their business, and a profitable one, by going after people's lives in ways that are not only invasive, intrusive and totally cruel...but irrelevant to our civic responsibilities. Even in the Monica Lewinsky issue it is the responsibility of the National Security agencies to investigate discreetly to make sure Monica is not a spy, and no classified information was leaked or stolen. Once they find there are no such violations it is none of our business.
Our media thrives on cheap scandals, gossip, rumors and ruining successful people, while letting rogues who commit financial crimes and crimes against humanity go free. Lets turn the camera on the media itself.
I think the headline here is that it costs $10 million to sue. So basically anyone who is not a multimillionaire many times over is just chum in the water for any business. Insurance companies, media, banks, the auto industry are nearly immune to lawsuits. The next thing that's being dismantled are class action rights, the only avenue left to the wronged and damaged.
6
This is a great argument against the foolishness of libertarianism. Mr. Thiel is a "libertarian", according to the piece.
But, of course, he only believes in absolute freedom for himself. When Gawker acts freely he uses his economic power to crush them.
And there's the flaw in the naive libertarian philosophy: when there are no government protections or regulations the people with the most money will have the power to destroy liberty. Not all rich people will do this, but as with every group there are sociopaths and power-freaks among the wealthy.
Absent the checks and balances of government regulation the most rapacious will dominate -- and freedom will be gone for everyone else. This isn't an argument for specific regulation of Mr. Thiel or the press or Gawker. It's an illustration of how money equals power.
But, of course, he only believes in absolute freedom for himself. When Gawker acts freely he uses his economic power to crush them.
And there's the flaw in the naive libertarian philosophy: when there are no government protections or regulations the people with the most money will have the power to destroy liberty. Not all rich people will do this, but as with every group there are sociopaths and power-freaks among the wealthy.
Absent the checks and balances of government regulation the most rapacious will dominate -- and freedom will be gone for everyone else. This isn't an argument for specific regulation of Mr. Thiel or the press or Gawker. It's an illustration of how money equals power.
4
Mr Thiel has the resources to take on rouge media and media which seem to paint the truth through opinionated writing. And why not, he was affected by those who wanted to question his sexuality and in the process increase revenues as an end game. It's time that media get it's feet put to the fire and where it will consume it's resources to defend their existence.
I'm a gay male and have no problem with Gawker's outing of Peter Thiel. In fact, I think they did our community and anyone concerned with social justice a huge favor.
This is a man with reprehensible political views who has aligned himself with one of the most virulently homophobic mainstream political parties in the developed world. His support for conservative Republican gay organizations doesn't excuse him, either: those groups are the embodiment of internalized-homophobia and their "attempts" to reform their party were delusional, or, to get armchair psychologist for a moment, a vain, pathetic way of reconciling their cognitive dissonance.
The financing of the very people who have sought to deny millions of gays and lesbians their fundamental rights firmly places Mr. Thiel in the public sphere. He deserved to be subjected to the same treatment as the dozens of politicians and other figures who publicly preached gay hate during the day then retired to their rentboys and anonymous trysts at night. It's the kind of rank moral hypocrisy that has come to define the Republican party, and it should be loudly called out wherever and whenever it's found.
On a side note, Mr. Thiel and his ilk disgust me. After a turbulent adolescence, I've come to be proud of my identity as a gay man. In 2016, it's (ironically) only other gay men like Mr. Thiel who are still capable of making me feel ashamed.
This is a man with reprehensible political views who has aligned himself with one of the most virulently homophobic mainstream political parties in the developed world. His support for conservative Republican gay organizations doesn't excuse him, either: those groups are the embodiment of internalized-homophobia and their "attempts" to reform their party were delusional, or, to get armchair psychologist for a moment, a vain, pathetic way of reconciling their cognitive dissonance.
The financing of the very people who have sought to deny millions of gays and lesbians their fundamental rights firmly places Mr. Thiel in the public sphere. He deserved to be subjected to the same treatment as the dozens of politicians and other figures who publicly preached gay hate during the day then retired to their rentboys and anonymous trysts at night. It's the kind of rank moral hypocrisy that has come to define the Republican party, and it should be loudly called out wherever and whenever it's found.
On a side note, Mr. Thiel and his ilk disgust me. After a turbulent adolescence, I've come to be proud of my identity as a gay man. In 2016, it's (ironically) only other gay men like Mr. Thiel who are still capable of making me feel ashamed.
6
As a NYT and Gawker reader, I can say both outlets provide essential information relay services. As Sorkin pointed out, this is not about the merits of the Hulk Hogan lawsuit or the fate of Gawker. It's about how the Hogan's case was funded and by whom. That in itself is extremely interesting. Silicon Valley is gaining way too much influence in the political sphere. We may like to believe those in the valley are just a bunch of shy misunderstood nerds. As if STEM brilliance alone is giving us breathtaking stuff purely from mind's eye by delivery drone. Underneath all that cool stuff is a lot of public policy being influenced. This paves the way for Silicon Valley marketing and sales. Money flowing into Silicon Valley also flows to Washington and state capitols. Uber is one example. Our governments spend billions a year on technology goods and services. For instance, Amazon's cloud hosts CIA's needs. And we learned from NYT how intertwined Silicon Valley is with our security apparatus. Also, our news is controlled more and more by tech companies like Facebook. Much of technology sales is based on total devotion to either the product and/or the man in charge. Thiel's buddy Elon Musk for example. Silicon valley spends a lot to expand the population of devotees. The more stories about Silicon Valley and doings of its nerds the better. I believe the US banned atomic wedgies and locker stuffing. Now we have nerds on the loose. So policy bred tech libertarians.
2
Wait, there is no big money behind a) abortion cases, b) national security cases, c) affirtmative action cases, d) religious rights cases? The blue print Mr. Thiel has engaged has been used by big, big, conservative and liberal think tanks for years and years! MLK purposefully placed marchers infront of the dogs and created protests in locations where the marchers would be arrested and injured! THen when the journalists arrived they made sure the proper horrific photos were taken and published. There is so much cororate think tank money behind lawsuits these days, Mr. Thiel could hardly be considered a trailblazer! What about the Koch's admitted 900 million they were going to spend on this election cycle? Is there any difference? What about all those abortion bills pending in the the bible belt legislatures? WHo sponsored them and who funded their 'grass roots' public relations gambits? All who read this, don't be so offended! This is merely big money financing litigation as opposed to pending legislation. What about the NRA?? Also, The Hulk could have assigned or sold his $150 million judgement for actual recoverable money; womething that also happens every day!
Gawker deserved to be sued for publishing a sex tape. However, Thiel's problem with Gawker has more to do with their pointing out in an article his suggestion that things in the US have gone downhill since women were granted the right to vote: "The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron." So, basically, things really started to go downhill after the last gilded age ended...
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian
4
I have zero sympathy for Gawker. There was absolutely no justification for publishing the sex tape. None. Every time I see members of the media go after people for their personal indiscretions, I wonder what would happen if someone put out a bounty on information about the private lives of journalists. I think we would find out they are not much better than the people they go after. Lots of the so-called alternative media have become just outright meanies and bullies.
1
I am so torn over this. I have no more objection to Gawker being ruined by a lawsuit than I do to Confidential in the 1950's being ruined by one, after a similar run of articles invading privacy and ruining lives. But I am extremely disturbed by the spectacle of a billionaire fomenting and financing a third party lawsuit, and of the crushing impact of the 1%'s money being used to harry the press whenever it publishes anything inconveniently true. That may not apply to Mr. Thiel himself (or one day it may) but it certainly applies to, for example, Mr. Thiel's friend Donald Trump (as a gay man, how can he countenance Trump?). Nuisance suits against the press, which may have few resources to fight them, can stifle information and discourse in corners far from Gawker's unnewsworthy invasions of privacy.
2
Sharing a first name always garners sympathy, and the story got more of mine lined up[ behind Mr. Thiel; until the "A libertarian, Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for Donald J. Trump" part. So much for my sympathy. Now I can see this crusade from a completely different angle.
My sympathy now rests with the poor defendants going against well funded corporations, but not with some rich guy spending his pocket money on a private crusade.
My sympathy now rests with the poor defendants going against well funded corporations, but not with some rich guy spending his pocket money on a private crusade.
4
1) I think much of the claims by the news industry that it informs the voters is utter claptrap. As others have noted, the First Amendment has value only if you are a billionaire who can afford to own a news corporation --- the rest of us might as well go out in the woods and yells at the squirrels.
2) Anyone who crosschecks the facts and researchs issues will find that much of our news coverage is highly misleading. Cherrypicked facts to support wealthy agendas and coverups of facts contrary to the agenda. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the voters are too busy earning a living to do an independent evaluation of the opinions being spoonfed into their brains 24/7.
2) Anyone who crosschecks the facts and researchs issues will find that much of our news coverage is highly misleading. Cherrypicked facts to support wealthy agendas and coverups of facts contrary to the agenda. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the voters are too busy earning a living to do an independent evaluation of the opinions being spoonfed into their brains 24/7.
1
Before Thiel lent a helping hand, the Hogan vs Gawker lawsuit was more like David facing Goliath. The party with the deepest pockets always prevails: they do not have to win on merit, they just need to outspend the other party. Gawker was obviously counting on it.
Theil just leveled the playing field, so the lawsuit can be based solely on merit. This way the First Amendment works equally for both parties. Victims of slander now have an equal voice.
The one scary prospect of the whole article is that of President Trump suing everyone who disagrees with him. I wonder what Thiel would do about it?
Theil just leveled the playing field, so the lawsuit can be based solely on merit. This way the First Amendment works equally for both parties. Victims of slander now have an equal voice.
The one scary prospect of the whole article is that of President Trump suing everyone who disagrees with him. I wonder what Thiel would do about it?
2
It's no surprise that a billionaire libertarian wants to shut down and destroy a gossip journalism site that offended him. That's what the megarich have done forever, and it's why the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. The sad thing is that so many commenters agree with Thiel, despite the fact that there was no libel involved in any of the cases that irritated him: his own outing, Tim Cook's outing, or Hulk Hogan's sex tape.
It's long been said that the strongest defense against any libel suit is truth, and given that the facts of the matters Gawker reported on were true, I am almost 100% confident that the award to Hogan will be overturned on appeal ... unless the justice system is so utterly corrupt that appeals court judges and the Supreme Court can no longer see reality (which is true of some judges/justices).
Libertarians like Thiel and their chosen candidates like Trump have no interest in liberty or justice for all: what they want is license for themselves to do anything they wish, without consequences, and the power to destroy anyone who challenges them. Thiel and Trump are a perfect pair; we can only hope the Constitution comes between them and even more power.
It's long been said that the strongest defense against any libel suit is truth, and given that the facts of the matters Gawker reported on were true, I am almost 100% confident that the award to Hogan will be overturned on appeal ... unless the justice system is so utterly corrupt that appeals court judges and the Supreme Court can no longer see reality (which is true of some judges/justices).
Libertarians like Thiel and their chosen candidates like Trump have no interest in liberty or justice for all: what they want is license for themselves to do anything they wish, without consequences, and the power to destroy anyone who challenges them. Thiel and Trump are a perfect pair; we can only hope the Constitution comes between them and even more power.
14
"He who has the gold rules" is the only law Libertarians respect.
2
As transgender, I'm of two minds:
By Mr Thiel staying in the closet, he did nothing to advance his own civil rights, or those of his group; with his very clear intellect (he is so eloquent in this article I'm speechless) and that amount of cash, the good he could have done would have been enormous, enormous. So, in one way, 0 kudos to him for his lack of personal insight, lack of concern for his and fellow gays rights, 0 courage, and failure to accept being gay is perfectly fine. It's not like anyone could've touched him, or that he'd lose any business. We all know the more that come out, the happier and safer LGBT people will be, and with rights.
On the other hand, why should Gawker self appoint as out-in-chief? By what right did it have to do this: is this truly free speech or subtle but cleverly crafted gossip to advance its own financial (or gay rights?) agenda? If he wanted to remain secret, it was his right; perhaps his family couldn't deal; perhaps; perhaps. I think remaining closeted was shortsighted, self-hating, and destructive of civil rights, but it's his choice, not another's. As a lawyer, I get the standard of libeling a public figure is higher, but until I read this article didn't know of him, so is he really that much a public figure?
A pox on both their houses.
By Mr Thiel staying in the closet, he did nothing to advance his own civil rights, or those of his group; with his very clear intellect (he is so eloquent in this article I'm speechless) and that amount of cash, the good he could have done would have been enormous, enormous. So, in one way, 0 kudos to him for his lack of personal insight, lack of concern for his and fellow gays rights, 0 courage, and failure to accept being gay is perfectly fine. It's not like anyone could've touched him, or that he'd lose any business. We all know the more that come out, the happier and safer LGBT people will be, and with rights.
On the other hand, why should Gawker self appoint as out-in-chief? By what right did it have to do this: is this truly free speech or subtle but cleverly crafted gossip to advance its own financial (or gay rights?) agenda? If he wanted to remain secret, it was his right; perhaps his family couldn't deal; perhaps; perhaps. I think remaining closeted was shortsighted, self-hating, and destructive of civil rights, but it's his choice, not another's. As a lawyer, I get the standard of libeling a public figure is higher, but until I read this article didn't know of him, so is he really that much a public figure?
A pox on both their houses.
2
No one deserves so much money that they can singlehandedly change jurisprudence at a whim. Taxes should be confiscatory at this level to encourage social cohesion.
1
(addition to earlier comment:)
All pretenders except the queen.
All pretenders except the queen.
1
In 1890 Louis Brandeis and his law partner wrote a famous law review article titled "The Right to Privacy," that we have a right to be let alone in our private affairs, unless revealing them will serve the public welfare. We should know that a mayor is a crackhead, or a revered comedian may be a serial rapist. But Thiel's or anyone's sexual choices is nobody's business, unless they wish to make it public. Such revelations have ruined lives and careers. This is what Nick Denton of Gawker doesn't get. Unfortunately, our libel laws keep bumping against the First Amendment. Gawker got its comeuppance, and if it closes down, a similar outlet will climb out of the gutter to replace it. The type of salacious news from which Gawker made its money has been with us since man first learned to scratch letters and images on stone. As for Thiel's libertarian political views, how you reconcile that philosophy with a preference for Donald Trump--like Gawker, a mud slinger--is beyond my comprehension.
1
So in the end, it is better if Gawker survives because they will now be more cautious than their successor.
I wonder why most wealthy gays are Republican or conservative. I understand that it may be because of their upbringing or belief but why believe in a party that is against your existence?
10
There are people within the republican party that are anti gay .There are larger swaths of gay democrats who believe that gays need to be outed if they are in the closet .Just supporting gay pride is not enough for that radical group.
I have a lot of gay friends who have good reasons not to come out to the world at large. Some rather wait until the death of a beloved nonagenarian grandparent, who would be heartbroken to learn that their grandchild was gay. Others do business in countries where homosexuality is illegal or looked down upon. That's neither retrograde nor homophobic but compassionate and expedient. Not everyone is a social justice warrior and people do have a right to privacy, as long as they are not breaking the law. There is a categorical difference between reporting on a real crime like rape or domestic abuse and another to invade someone's private sphere.
The Thiel article accompanying this article quotes Scott Adams, creator of the cartoon 'Dilbert', as expressing support for Thiel. Adams is a longtime Libertarian (though he currently shies away from the label) and a Trump supporter (he currently shies away from that label as well). This support may be viewed on his blog though he terms it neutral analysis of Trump's campaign and strategies. California and parts of the American West, Northwest and Southwest are full of these men. I don't believe much of the world understands that unless one has business dealings in the region.
5
Two points in this story caught my eye. First, Professor Simon said that he is troubled by lawsuits being filed by people with an agenda driven by revenge or personal dislike or wanting to prove a point. If this guy is a law professor, how can he not know that that criteria is what drives most civil trials? Revenge for being wronged. Intense personal dislike of the people who wronged you. And proving the big point by winning the case on the merits.
Second, Mr. Owen Thomas, the now-business editor of the SF Chronicle, stated that he believed Mr. Thiel was out and not in the closet. How about picking up a phone and calling the guy for a response? Never occurred to the Gawker news expert? Not a very good journalist he, unless you include the yellow variety. Then Mr. Owen soars to the top of his class.
Second, Mr. Owen Thomas, the now-business editor of the SF Chronicle, stated that he believed Mr. Thiel was out and not in the closet. How about picking up a phone and calling the guy for a response? Never occurred to the Gawker news expert? Not a very good journalist he, unless you include the yellow variety. Then Mr. Owen soars to the top of his class.
Good for you Peter.
As any NYT reader well knows, Gawker is a cesspool. Often entertaining, often addictive, but a cesspool nonetheless. I've spent too many hours on their blog network, so I'm acutely aware it symbolizes the death of good journalism. And frankly, nothing depresses and angers me more than hearing young, hip, Slate or Salon type journos defend Gawker and yak about the brilliant original content scattered among the sewage.
On balance, Gawker is a cancer on journalism and society. Anyone who values principled, prudent, and beneficially provocative journalism -- like that found daily in the NYT -- should be cheering Mr. Thiel's campaign to destroy Gawker Media.
As any NYT reader well knows, Gawker is a cesspool. Often entertaining, often addictive, but a cesspool nonetheless. I've spent too many hours on their blog network, so I'm acutely aware it symbolizes the death of good journalism. And frankly, nothing depresses and angers me more than hearing young, hip, Slate or Salon type journos defend Gawker and yak about the brilliant original content scattered among the sewage.
On balance, Gawker is a cancer on journalism and society. Anyone who values principled, prudent, and beneficially provocative journalism -- like that found daily in the NYT -- should be cheering Mr. Thiel's campaign to destroy Gawker Media.
You're stiff like Thiel. All of life is gossip.
1
Gawker is not the cesspool. Has it ever occurred to you Thiel may be the cess in the pool that is America, for the rich, by the rich and of the rich?
I want Gawker to win on appeal. Gawker is cheeky, funny, daring and spicy. Peter Thiel is a stuck up egomaniac. With his billions and his agenda to influence American politics, American courts and American culture, he is an American "oiligarch" in the ilk of the Koch Brothers threatening to American freedoms. The man has no guts. He doesn't sue Gawker for slander, instead he sneaks around for 10 years to back Hulk Hogan. Why isn't Peter Thiel fair game? He is a Trump delegate, he encourages students to drop out of school--may be against their parents' wishes--so he can finance their entrepreneurial dreams--he wants island cities out of reach of govts where the only ruler will be Peter Thiel--heck the man's an aspiring despot--and he wants privacy. Give me a break. Without Peter Thiel's deep pockets the Hulk would have been debulked in the courts. And even if the Hulk had won, Gawker would have had insurance backing. I may disagree with the press at times but I loathe anyone who interferes with the freedom of the press and plots the total demise of a news outlet. Gawker I love as much as my morning coffee. It's my belly full of laughs. Its readers' comments are salty low blows to the high and mighty. Long live Gawker and down with the Peter Thiel agenda to selectively obliterate one news outlet while supporting others. I am not falling for that rubbish.
7
Did you all miss the part where 12 ordinary people listened to the evidence and found Gawker liable to the tune of $140,000,000? Unless Thiel bribed them also, I don't see what everyone is complaining about.
In this, at least, Thiel is on the side of the angels. Since the day of its founding, Gawker's entire raison d'être has been to destroy people's lives through the most vile, malicious gossip and rumors; identifying the workplaces, homes, afterwork haunts and every detail of the private lives of celebrities or anyone else it deemed worthy of its prying; and bringing down the great and the good along with those whose station in life, lifestyle, age, appearance, etc. made them targets.
it specialized in exposing salacious details of people's most private moments (whether verifiable or even plausible), and this last is what finally led to its judicial Waterloo. Just because Hogan served up his sexcapades for public consumption doesn't justify making public a video taken without his knowledge.
There's no constitutional justification for such an rank of invasion of privacy. Gawker's victims either didn't want to pursue legal recourse out of fear a painful episode would be lengthened for public consumption, or lacked the means to do so.
Someone had to step up to the plate. If it was Thiel, so be it. More power to him.
it specialized in exposing salacious details of people's most private moments (whether verifiable or even plausible), and this last is what finally led to its judicial Waterloo. Just because Hogan served up his sexcapades for public consumption doesn't justify making public a video taken without his knowledge.
There's no constitutional justification for such an rank of invasion of privacy. Gawker's victims either didn't want to pursue legal recourse out of fear a painful episode would be lengthened for public consumption, or lacked the means to do so.
Someone had to step up to the plate. If it was Thiel, so be it. More power to him.
Mr. Thiel is a libertarian. A political philosophy to my knowledge that prefers a way of life as unregulated and unfettered by authority as possible. To this end, Gawker, however despicable, appears to operate under the same philosophy. It is only because he was personally targeted, as he is a rich and prominent person, that he is suddenly no longer adherent to his own flawed political views. I find him to be a hypocrite. Why not spend his wealth helping rather than feeding a somewhat broken legal system. As annoying as being gossip fodder is, most is forgotten after approximately two weeks. The lawsuit is the only reason any of us remember that the Hulk had sex with his neighbor or that Peter Thiel is out and not proud.
7
Academic and intellectual naifs are chomping at the bit to frame this case as precedent to a compelling threat against journalism, because they are expected to make grandiose interpretations on high-visibility news about the news to maintain their bona fides.
This isn't an attack on the institution of journalism, or a swipe at a strong/unblemished standard bearer of the first amendment.
This is revenge. Legal, proper, skillful revenge against an organization that targeted the personal life of a billionaire to make money, and to this day continues to out gay, famous people as a form of profitable public shaming.
This isn't an attack on the institution of journalism, or a swipe at a strong/unblemished standard bearer of the first amendment.
This is revenge. Legal, proper, skillful revenge against an organization that targeted the personal life of a billionaire to make money, and to this day continues to out gay, famous people as a form of profitable public shaming.
2
Wealthy high-profiles bouncing off each other to gain wealthier higher profiles by revealing--what? Exactly what they want to reveal. Billionaire clown wrestlers circling the ring, what's going on in two-thousand-sixteen.
1
Hats Off to Peter Thiel. Great action.
A lot of commentators here seem to think that what Thiel is doing is something new. It isn't, it's ur-American. Think of Hearst and Citizen Kane. Think of all the billionaires who have destroyed their enemies with lawsuits.
As long as courts are willing to award astronomic damages, litigation will be extremely expensive and allow the uber-rich to game the system. I was once told by a New York carpenter that he was only working for cash in advance after he had sent a bill to a New Yorker lawyer who then refused to pay with a smug "you can sue me if you like."
This is why, in comparison to other developed countries, the rich rarely go to prison and why only big law firms are talking on the super-rich.
As long as courts are willing to award astronomic damages, litigation will be extremely expensive and allow the uber-rich to game the system. I was once told by a New York carpenter that he was only working for cash in advance after he had sent a bill to a New Yorker lawyer who then refused to pay with a smug "you can sue me if you like."
This is why, in comparison to other developed countries, the rich rarely go to prison and why only big law firms are talking on the super-rich.
105
It does not look like what Mr. Thiel did was wrong, at least at first, but there are incongruous elements throughout. And yet still something seems wrong. He has this focus on truth, and yet "truth" is ambiguous, always. As for Hulk Hogan and the sex tape: Hulk Hogan? One of two personal identities? And this is worthy of $140,000,000? It's worse than not funny.
4
Hysterical screen play here. I vengeful, outed gay billionaire funds a long in the tooth and long in the mustache pro wrestler's lawsuit against a low class,bullying,gossip mongering online rag sheet for exposing his home-made porno. A wrestler's romp in the sheets that is certainly not worth losing $140M for.
Throw in Donald Trump also just to fill out the character. That's a really weird part of the story.
Revenge can be sweet, It can also be expensive.
Let's hope Mr. Theil funds the movie version and surely gets to pick who portrays himself. Is George Clooney available?
Throw in Donald Trump also just to fill out the character. That's a really weird part of the story.
Revenge can be sweet, It can also be expensive.
Let's hope Mr. Theil funds the movie version and surely gets to pick who portrays himself. Is George Clooney available?
5
" “I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest.”
What an utterly fatuous statement. This evil queen (I can say that because I'm gay) has donated millions to anti-gay politicians and PACs. Of course it's in the "public interest" to know that he is, in fact, gay. That being said, this is a completely different issue from Gawker's stupid publication of the sex tape...if he wanted to fund the lawsuit against that, so be it. Even if it's for an irrationally self-centered reason.
What an utterly fatuous statement. This evil queen (I can say that because I'm gay) has donated millions to anti-gay politicians and PACs. Of course it's in the "public interest" to know that he is, in fact, gay. That being said, this is a completely different issue from Gawker's stupid publication of the sex tape...if he wanted to fund the lawsuit against that, so be it. Even if it's for an irrationally self-centered reason.
4
The "public interest" has NO "right" to know what another person's sexual preferences are, whether or not that person is a public figure. Only a voyeuristic Peeping Tom would "care" about another person's sexual preference. Either that, or the entire Liberal Progressive "message" about sexuality over the past 8 years is a lie and based on MASSIVE hypocrisy.....
Thiel’s support for Trump is textbook. As Wilhelm Reich detailed in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, people who are ashamed of their own natural sexuality live in private hells and flock to fascistic charlatans.
Thiel and Trump both want to hamble the free press that is crucial for American democracy. I’ve never read Gawker, and have no interest whatsoever in watching some clown’s sex tape, but any media that reports the truth needs to be supported by everyone who values freedom.
Anyone, like Thiel, who pulls strings behind the scenes to undermine media freedom needs to be pilloried and ostracized.
Thiel and Trump both want to hamble the free press that is crucial for American democracy. I’ve never read Gawker, and have no interest whatsoever in watching some clown’s sex tape, but any media that reports the truth needs to be supported by everyone who values freedom.
Anyone, like Thiel, who pulls strings behind the scenes to undermine media freedom needs to be pilloried and ostracized.
8
This article completely misses to clarify to the uninformed reader that Gawker is as pro-gay as any media could ever be. Whether that gives them the right to out people who are closeted hypocrites is a thoroughly debatable point. But I would rather Gawker out privileged public figures who are hypocrites than the likes of Theil use their power and money to shut them up.
4
If Thiel is doing this out of detterance and not out of revenge, he's certainly gone about it the wrong way. We cannot support a billionaire who can decide what he thinks is right or wrong, and then use our legal system to achieve his personal goals. Gee Peter, what could go wrong?
5
gawker is a ra, trash publication that deserves everything it gets. I only hope, as it has been said, this changes nothing in this case. If Hogan had this money to put into thisc ase, he would have. this is nothing more than person helping another fight a major publication. This is people helping people.
2
The thing that I don't like is that Thiel did what he did in secret. That's not what we, as a society, consider honorable. What's he so ashamed of? Why did he have to be outed as the benefactor?
1
His "secrecy" is irrelevant.
Secrecy, the weapon of the billionaire class.
Gawker is a rag, trash publication that deserves everything it gets. I only hope, as it has been said, this changes nothing in this case. If Hogan had the money to put into this case, he would have. This is nothing more than person helping another fight a major publication. This is people helping people.
1
Trash vs trash -- one abusing the power of media, the other abusing the power of money. Mr. Thiel, your motivation is nothing but revenge. Any thought that you were acting to help the little people (Hulk Hogan?), or to further the common good, is nothing but hubris.
6
Here we go again. Another richly funded race to the bottom. It's not surprising that Donald Trump figures into this, however tangentially.
3
Trump omnipresent but thank the good lord, not omniscient, may be not even sentient.
Another reality TV episode - two gay men (Thiel and Denton) fought over their gayness with a straight man (Hogan) in between. Can we have some wholesome entertainment beside the reality TV?
2
And the hypocrisy. It's the persecuted as the persecutors.
I believe that Gawker et al are parasites, not journalists, and offer nothing of benefit to society. Mr. Thiel's politics aside, I believe that removing these purveyors of poison from society is a very good thing.
3
So Hulk Hogan got to hire good lawyers because of Thiel. Does anybody think Gawker had to rely on a public defender?
Gawker sells sleaze apparently. As a result, I could not care less about any legal effort to hurt its business. Motives are not relevant and, arguably, not knowable. (We are not talking about manslaughter versus murder.) As to Thiel being a Trump guy, what does that have to do with the substance of the issue one way or the other? If Thiel -- or Trump -- invented penicillin, would you refuse to use it, if you were sick?
Gawker sells sleaze apparently. As a result, I could not care less about any legal effort to hurt its business. Motives are not relevant and, arguably, not knowable. (We are not talking about manslaughter versus murder.) As to Thiel being a Trump guy, what does that have to do with the substance of the issue one way or the other? If Thiel -- or Trump -- invented penicillin, would you refuse to use it, if you were sick?
7
The National Enquirer, the Gawker and next what you write. Get real.
Peter Thiel is not the real deal,
he's a vengeful Mogul with a spiel.
Peter Thiel is not the real deal,
he's a vengeful Mogul with a spiel.
I also was an early investor in Facebook. I bought it at about 30 a share, it dropped to 18 and someone sued in an upper-class-action suit to be able to sell it. Now it's like 10,000 a share and I used my hundred bucks to buy a lamp and several cans of corn. I think the guy who encouraged us to sell wasn't being candid. He said he learned his art from listening to a speaker at Goldman-Sachs. He won't tell me exactly what she said.
3
I want Gawker to win on appeal. Gawker is cheeky, funny, daring and spicy. Peter Thiel is as a stuck up egomaniac. With his billions and his agenda to influence American politics, American courts and American culture, he is an American "oiligarch" in the ilk of the Koch Brothers threatening to American freedoms. The man has no guts. He doesn't sue Gawker for slander, instead he sneaks around for 10 years to back Hulk Hogan. Why isn't Peter Thiel fair game? He is a Trump delegate, he encourages students to drop out of school--may be against their parents' wishes--so he can finance their entrepreneurial dreams--he wants island cities out of reach of govts where the only ruler will be Peter Thiel--heck the man's an aspiring despot--and he wants privacy. Give me a break. Without Peter Thiel's deep pockets the Hulk would have been debulked in the courts. And even if the Hulk had won, Gawker would have had insurance backing. I may disagree with the press at times but I loathe anyone who interferes with the freedom of the press and plots the total demise of a news outlet. Gawker I love as much as my morning coffee. It's my belly full of laughs. Its readers comments are salty low blows to the high and mighty. Long live Gawker and down with the Peter Thiel agenda to selectively obliterate one news outlet while supporting others. I am not falling for that rubbish.
17
So, Peter Thiel is just like George Soros.
And what's that supposed to mean? I don't like Soros another rich influence peddler.
Just more of the same circus. If you listened to the radio show, you heard day after day about Hogan's ex Linda bleeding him dry in court. How much of it is theatre, I have no idea. Apparently, in Florida, the deeper pocket pays the legal fees for the spouse. The video took place in Hogan's friend's house with his full knowledge - you can even hear him on the tape. Supposedly the tape was "stolen". Once again, how much is theatre I have no idea. I just hope Heather gets her cut - her reputation is ruined - I hear or see no one claiming her rights were violated... This whole thing is not $140M worth IMHO but wait ... Bubba "paid" almost a million in legal fees for his law suit with MJ.... (Once again, theatre) ... Everyone gets paid after the dust settles.... it's the American way :-(
Gawker was a toxic and evil organisation that needed to be destroyed. This sets a fantastic precedent that shows that the power of cooperating individuals can overcome and take down the most law-shirking and abusive of left-wing media organisations.
3
I have had issues with some of Gawkers "take down journalism" at times. Largly because it gets so personal so fast. But for the most part, they target hypocrites, thieves and charlatans. And they tend to wait until they have enough damning evidence to do so. Hogan was caught on tape expressing his disgust with minorities and has profited off of appeal to those base instincts amongst his fans for decades. Thiel is and has revealed himself even more so to be, a blithering child who uses his money to bludgeon those he dissagrees with. I have no sympathy for those who can't self reflect enough to avoid the scorn of Gawker staff. This seems to be the common link between all these "targets". It takes a lot of scum-baggary to draw Gawker's attention.
3
It gives me the creeps now that I just learned that Peter Thiel is supporting Trump. It doesn't pass the smell test. And reading about "the PayPal mafia" reminds me of Balzac's claim that "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
5
Lots of high-level whining. I must admit: Thiel, Hogan, Gawker... who really gives a hoot. I read this because I am curious occasionally about these billionaires who make money by doing nothing all day except preening in front of a mirror of their own making and then wonder why people try to crack it. Their vanity is really irksome.
4
As a Trump delegate, Mr. Thiel has erased all the respect I had for him and then some. Any gay man, let alone a philanthropic, who can stomach the horrors a Trump presidency would deliver, is ignorant in one of the most important aspects of our existence, human decency.
Sigh...another hero, rotted from within.
Sigh...another hero, rotted from within.
1
Mr. Sorkin's account is a variance with other media reads -- far more rationalizing and more favorable to Mr. Thiel. You know, it sort of confirms or validates what many have said about the ties Mr. Sorkin enjoys and probably hopes to expand with business leaders. Tooo close for good reporting, I fear.
1
"A libertarian, Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for Donald J. Trump for the 2016 Republican National Convention."
That's all I need to know about Mr. Thiel. If he supports Trump's threats to essentially slice and dice the constitutional right to freedom of the press, the press AND the public have something to fear should the unthinkable happens and Trump become the POTUS.
That's all I need to know about Mr. Thiel. If he supports Trump's threats to essentially slice and dice the constitutional right to freedom of the press, the press AND the public have something to fear should the unthinkable happens and Trump become the POTUS.
2
Does Hulk Hogan really qualify as one of those common victims for whom it's so hard to get justice?
Thiel's convictions have been described as contradictory and inconsistent, but they have a rigid internal logic: he believes in whatever enables his greed, burnishes his ego, and affirms his right to do as he pleases.
He's a paragon of the Silicon Valley mindset.
He's a paragon of the Silicon Valley mindset.
1
So Peter Thiel who is gay is a delegate to the convention of the party that hates gays. You can't make this stuff up
6
Mr. Thiel is not interested in helping victims. He's a privileged, extremely wealthy, anti-government, ex-closeted gay man bent on getting revenge for being outed. No doubt being in the closet made it easier to become wealthy in a straight male-dominated industry. He is one of many formerly closeted gay men that have enjoyed benefits of civil rights gains achieved by the people who had the courage to speak up and fight for equality. Mr. Theil had has done nothing for victims - only for himself.
3
I think it's good that someone fights back against websites and publications which delve into the private life of people when there is absolutely no public interest.
It's not a coincidence that Nick Denton cites cases of news story which are in some case legitimate (but in others not at all).
He wants to blur and confuse the differences. Outing Tim Cook or Peter Thiel as gay is NOT in the public interest.
Their sexual orientation is theirs. If that would be affecting their roles as CEO or VC then it would become important to investors. But it does not. The article outing Mr. Thiel was ridiculous and pointless, the writer justified writing about it it because he was gay himself ?!?!?!
Mr Denton knows is job (and fortune) depends on clicks and page views. And does not care about the consequences. "[Thiel's] opinion does not trump our millions of readers" he said. normally it would not, but It actually does when someone's private life is at stake. There is a right to privacy. The fact that he has million of readers is pointless. The Roman circuses had million of spectators as well, watching innocent people getting killed. Did not make it right.
Maybe $140M is a bit exaggerated but surely there must be punitive damages high enough to deter Gawker's behavior.
It's not a coincidence that Nick Denton cites cases of news story which are in some case legitimate (but in others not at all).
He wants to blur and confuse the differences. Outing Tim Cook or Peter Thiel as gay is NOT in the public interest.
Their sexual orientation is theirs. If that would be affecting their roles as CEO or VC then it would become important to investors. But it does not. The article outing Mr. Thiel was ridiculous and pointless, the writer justified writing about it it because he was gay himself ?!?!?!
Mr Denton knows is job (and fortune) depends on clicks and page views. And does not care about the consequences. "[Thiel's] opinion does not trump our millions of readers" he said. normally it would not, but It actually does when someone's private life is at stake. There is a right to privacy. The fact that he has million of readers is pointless. The Roman circuses had million of spectators as well, watching innocent people getting killed. Did not make it right.
Maybe $140M is a bit exaggerated but surely there must be punitive damages high enough to deter Gawker's behavior.
4
Gawker is not journalism. Real journalists abide by a certain ethical code. Basic journalistic integrity requires that care is taken to tell the truth. If someone is savaged, real journalism requires that the person being savaged is contacted for comment or to rebut potential damaging material. Real journalism weighs the news value of a story vs. the harm that publishing a non-story might do.
Gawker is/was not concerned with real journalism. Gawker is concerned with page views, clicks and advertising dollars.
Gawker's callous disregard for the truth hurt's real journalists to the extent that people confuse what they are doing with actual journalism.
I admire Peter Thiel's philanthropy and hope that this case has a chilling effect on irresponsible fake journalism/journalists everywhere and the almighty page views that they pursue at the expense of basic decency and true and actual journalism.
Gawker is/was not concerned with real journalism. Gawker is concerned with page views, clicks and advertising dollars.
Gawker's callous disregard for the truth hurt's real journalists to the extent that people confuse what they are doing with actual journalism.
I admire Peter Thiel's philanthropy and hope that this case has a chilling effect on irresponsible fake journalism/journalists everywhere and the almighty page views that they pursue at the expense of basic decency and true and actual journalism.
1
"In a statement, Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker Media, who was also personally named in the Hogan suit, said: “Just because Peter Thiel is a Silicon Valley billionaire, his opinion does not trump our millions of readers who know us for routinely driving big news stories including Hillary Clinton’s secret email account, Bill Cosby’s history with women, the mayor of Toronto as a crack smoker, Tom Cruise’s role within Scientology, the N.F.L. cover-up of domestic abuse by players and just this month the hidden power of Facebook to determine the news you see.”
All of which were covered by just about every other respectable news-media organization in the country -- including The New York Times - which does not make a habit of invading people's privacy by publishing stories with the headline - “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.”
Sorry Mr. Denton -- try again...
All of which were covered by just about every other respectable news-media organization in the country -- including The New York Times - which does not make a habit of invading people's privacy by publishing stories with the headline - “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.”
Sorry Mr. Denton -- try again...
1
Oh, my, so an academic, Simon, is “troubled by Thiel,” Professor Simon said. “I guess that one guy is much more likely to have an agenda driven by revenge or personal dislike or wanting to prove a point.” Where is the concern and pearl-clutching about a media entity, Gawker, driven entirely by revenge, personal dislike, or wanting to prove a point (look at their smear of Conde Nast's CFO, brother of former Secretary of the Treasury for one of many examples)? All the venom and destruction they wreak is ok, just because they call themselves journalists? Nick Denton and Gawker are slime and any respectable journalist knows that, and should never allow them or their organizations to be connected with the sewer that is Gawker.
1
Driven by the sheer fun in rattling the hypocrites and why not? Anonymous is doing it. Hurray for Anonymous and Gawker.
Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for Donald J. Trump for the 2016 Republican National Convention.
After reading this my respect for Peter Thiel has greatly increased!
After reading this my respect for Peter Thiel has greatly increased!
2
Nothing wrong with providing funds so that a position can be fully adjudicated in a us court.
1
Interesting to see a libertarian so deftly manipulate the court system to their personal interest. I guess government has its uses, but when it serves ones interests... Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy. And this from a billionaire Facebook board member and Trump supporter who is worried about quelling-slander and half truths.
4
Mr. Thomas, now business editor at The San Francisco Chronicle notes that Mr. Thiel "did discuss his sexuality, but it was known to a wide circle who felt that it was not fit for discussion beyond that circle. I thought that attitude was retrograde and homophobic, and that informed my reporting. I believe that he was out and not in the closet.”
I see no particular value is spreading the word about one's sexual orientation or preferences unless it includes child molestation, rape and other offensive behaviors. Who cares if Mr. Thiel was straight or gay. This line of argument does not hold water.
On the other hand, reading that Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for The Donald made me cringe. But here again, who am I to judge Mr. Thiel's choices in Presidential candidates. It is not a crime to support The Donald, except it is surprising in my opinion.
I see no particular value is spreading the word about one's sexual orientation or preferences unless it includes child molestation, rape and other offensive behaviors. Who cares if Mr. Thiel was straight or gay. This line of argument does not hold water.
On the other hand, reading that Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for The Donald made me cringe. But here again, who am I to judge Mr. Thiel's choices in Presidential candidates. It is not a crime to support The Donald, except it is surprising in my opinion.
2
I have great respect for Peter Thiel. Three cheers for him. He is a brilliant man who didn't deserve to be attacked.
He wrote a great book which I read Zero to One. I highly recommend it!!
Through Mr. Thiel's brilliance and hard work he has made the world a better place. Do some research on just one company that he founded Palantir Technologies and you will understand.
I would love to meet someone of his caliber. I wish Mr. Thiel the best!!
He wrote a great book which I read Zero to One. I highly recommend it!!
Through Mr. Thiel's brilliance and hard work he has made the world a better place. Do some research on just one company that he founded Palantir Technologies and you will understand.
I would love to meet someone of his caliber. I wish Mr. Thiel the best!!
1
In a way, our whole common law legal system is warped by the fact that precedential legal rulings (aka, law) only are created when there are two litigious parties with the incentive to keep appealing. In other words, private motives help determine and shape the law every day.
However, I'm still not clear on the justification for the outlandish damages award. Same issue with Erin Andrews.
Conceding the wrongfulness of the conduct, how is being viewed in a short sex tape a harm worth 100x that of a wrongful death or a permanent disability to a child?
However, I'm still not clear on the justification for the outlandish damages award. Same issue with Erin Andrews.
Conceding the wrongfulness of the conduct, how is being viewed in a short sex tape a harm worth 100x that of a wrongful death or a permanent disability to a child?
2
Interesting how the subject goes from the Gawker to Trump. You might start looking @ Prison Uniforms Weekly. It is a prison uniform catalog which could be used to pick out which uniform looks best with Hillary hair & flesh tones. I hear they have a sale on prison summer jumpers in " all " color's.
3
The latest scarlet letter: Pledged delegate for Donald Trump. The scarlet letter should have appeared at the beginning of the article. That would have spared how many, I won’t count them, from having to read the rest of the article.
2
It seems like a slippery slope when our system allows third-party financing of liable lawsuits, in terms of chilling free speech. But god is it satisfying to see soulless bottom feeders like Nick Denton taken down. Gawker will happily ruin lives for clicks and ad dollars. Good for Theil, put them down for good
3
Click bait is rampant in journalism. So? All the straitlaced, Victorians of the NYT comment section--lighten up. If he feels violated Thiel should sue Gawker for outing him. He knew he didn't have a case. So he backs the HULK. And the HULK accepts his largess. Gawker is a shining beacon on the hill compared to the two rascals in question. Gawker does a great job of exposing the clay feet of the billionaire class, secretly changing this country to suit their excess. Hurray for Gawker for needling and driving these guys berserk.
Thiel is an industrialist not very different from J. D. Rockefeller. What he's doing (and all his apologists please note) is no different essentially from Rockefeller's attempts to destroy Ida Tarbell the famous muck raking journalist of 110 years ago. No doubt the great John D. thought “It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence,”
1
Thiel is doing a great public service. I say this as a journalist, editor and journalism professor who has had the misfortune to be targeted by Gawker. What I personally discovered about Gawker is that they rush to publish one source rumors, without bothering to check with the person they're writing about, no matter how destructive the rumor. When presented with the facts that they got the story wrong in my case, they refused to run a correction or even include my denial in a follow up story. I was relinquished to leaving a comment in a story about me. Someone at Gawker made a deal with a source to damage my career, probably in exchange for a favor some sort. The damage was almost career ending for me. I had personal dealings with Denton to try to remedy the situation and he refused, even when presented with detailed refutation of the story. These are the standards he has personally set for Gawker - digital yellow journalism that's a throwback to the darkest days of newspaper publishing. I didn't sue because I didn't have the money and it would only make things worse to give them more excuses to write about me. As Thiel says, there are many, many victims of Gawker's atrocious behavior over the years. Gawker's financial success has given them vastly more cache with the media than they deserve -- their standards are far lower than even supermarket tabloids like the National Enquirer, which at least give their targets the opportunity to respond.
348
If what you're saying is true then Thiel should have helped you and not the Hulk but then you won't bring him the notoriety he desires will you?
1
I think your comment is the most significant. It is a personal history of a victim of nefarious journalistic activity that is under the protection of the first amendment. Clearly they are not printing news beneficial for the citizens but titillating gossip that may or may not even be true. The first amendment part of a crucial foundation for our republic, what can we do to make sure it is not abused in this manner? We will have to be the generation that makes some boundaries about how information is purveyed on the internet, otherwise it will be a long and slippery slope to a world we may not to live in.
Also no proof--we don't know you don't have an ax to grind with Gawker.
When, where and how someone declares their sexuality, gender or any other such deeply personal elements of their identity should be of their own choosing. The news should not be spread just because a journalist thinks it's his job to tell others some one is gay. Yes, their close friends may know but guess what it's because they're close friends. That doesn't give Gawker the right to spread the information to the world. I hope but doubt Gawker and other such "news" outlets learns a lesson from this.
8
When billionaires buy up newspapers they want to report favorably on them (Sheldon Adelson) or sure journals that report unfavorably on them in an effort to drive them out of business, then our democracy is in peril.
Keep in mind: no matter how odious its reporting, Gawker was not misrepresenting the facts when it published the stories in question. The outlet is not being sued for printing lies, but precisely for printing ugly truths.
Keep in mind: no matter how odious its reporting, Gawker was not misrepresenting the facts when it published the stories in question. The outlet is not being sued for printing lies, but precisely for printing ugly truths.
50
You write that Gawker "is not being sued for printing lies, but precisely for printing ugly truths." That's not true. Gawker is being sued because it disseminated a tape of a private sexual encounter that the plaintiff didn't know was being filmed. It is also being sued, because it outed Peter Thiel and others as gay when for whatever reasons that were personal to them, they did not feel like announcing to the world. Those aren't "ugly truths." Who people love in the privacy of their bedrooms and in their hearts is their own private business. Gawker and the rest of the world has no right to that information. Unless, of course, you're talking about a Republican hypocrite closet case who votes against gay rights. Or the like.
1
If Gawker bullied a 16 yr old celebrity by posting a sexual encounter, would you feel the same?
Sadly, I think you would.
Sadly, I think you would.
Ugly truths? I didn't realize being gay or making a private sex tape were ugly truths. I think Gawker's and its defenders are going to be sorely disappointed that most people don't see this as a First Amendment issue.
A libertarian who wants to control freedom of speech. LOL. One doesn't have to be a fan of Gawker to recognize this is very sinister behavior by Thiel. Who does this guy think he is? The masked avenger?
122
He has money and thus thinks he has the right to re-write rules and dictate social norms... How do you spell ARROGANCE...?
1
I have no sympathy for Gawker's yellow journalism - and the defendants didn't do themselves any favor during the court proceeding - but I have always known Thiel not being a nice person irrespective of his sexual orientation. So there is no good guy in this episode.
These so-called high achievers should stop taking taking ADHD medicine - if they do - and learn to practice empathy instead.
These so-called high achievers should stop taking taking ADHD medicine - if they do - and learn to practice empathy instead.
43
Despite your personal bias, Thiel is a good guy in this "episode."
Yet another example which shows America needs a right to privacy.
14
its called th 4th amendment
Me. Thiel salid, "it is extremely hard for the most common victims to get justice.” So after all, The system is rigged and only libertarians who support Trump can decide on such matters.
97
Isn't it funny how libertarians don't want any rules, until they do?
533
"libertarians don't want any rules," Seriously, where do you progressives get your information from? What's funny (scary actually) is your ignorance.
2
Yea. Just look at the Koch Bros. and the Walmart Clan.
2
Works for today's White House -- which is losing SCOTUS cases, at a historic pace.
Separate two issues.
Was what Gawker did appropriate.
Was Thiel's financing of the lawsuit appropriate.
Suppose company X is a polluter and citizen Y finances a lawsuit to force X to stop polluting and pay damages to be people damaged by X.
Is that action by Y appropriate.
I suspect the question in this Gawker case depends on whether one approves of Gawker's action or not.
We ration many things in the US by ability to pay including medical care, educational opportunity and legal representation.
That is the discussion we should be having.
I know nothing about Gawker or this specific case and I am therefore making no comment about this specific case or Gawker in general.
I do think the rationing I mentioned above does deserve discussion.
Was what Gawker did appropriate.
Was Thiel's financing of the lawsuit appropriate.
Suppose company X is a polluter and citizen Y finances a lawsuit to force X to stop polluting and pay damages to be people damaged by X.
Is that action by Y appropriate.
I suspect the question in this Gawker case depends on whether one approves of Gawker's action or not.
We ration many things in the US by ability to pay including medical care, educational opportunity and legal representation.
That is the discussion we should be having.
I know nothing about Gawker or this specific case and I am therefore making no comment about this specific case or Gawker in general.
I do think the rationing I mentioned above does deserve discussion.
29
So so well said!
It seems from the comments that it also has to do with whether one likes Donald Trump, or not....
I could not agree more. People with typical financial resources have no legal recourse because lawyers are expensive and unless a payoff is a near-certainty, they won't take your case. It happened to us.
Peter Thiel is doing a great public service.
107
In backing Trump?
2
I don't know what Mr. Thiel's reasons are for supporting Trump, but I don't see how that affects the Gawker issue one way or another.
I've got no problem with this.
Suing Gawker is not much different than suing the National Enquirer.
And the verdict against Gawker proves this wasn't a frivolous nuisance suit.
Suing Gawker is not much different than suing the National Enquirer.
And the verdict against Gawker proves this wasn't a frivolous nuisance suit.
116
@jxg
SF, CA
So you're quite happy with the principle that if some deep pocketed individual has a vendetta against you for example they are free to find people who may have some grievance against you and fund their lawsuits to destroy you financially.
SF, CA
So you're quite happy with the principle that if some deep pocketed individual has a vendetta against you for example they are free to find people who may have some grievance against you and fund their lawsuits to destroy you financially.
35
It’s not the verdict that is in question, but the way that that verdict was enabled by deep pockets. We are supposed to be equal under the law. Justice shouldn’t be a lottery that you win by having some billionaire be sypathetic to your cause.
18
If I stuck my nose into your private business so I can profit from it then yes, please sue me and destroy me financially.
4
Thiel's characterization of ValleyWag and Gawker intentionally ruining people's lives is accurate. They did it openly and with great glee. I'm a strong defender of the First Amendment - but the First Amendment doesn't give you blanket protection to do anything and say anything, facts be damned. Many, many people in the media add tech will be pleased to see Gawker disintegrate.
163
Not so fast. Many (i.e., millions) of us strongly disagree with such precedent which is incidentally will be overturned on appeal.
In your twisted logic, if tomorrow Donald Trump with his $Billions decides to bring down NBC or the Washington Post because he does not like their coverage of him (and prefers the coverage he receives on FoxNews), then that should be applauded....?
In your twisted logic, if tomorrow Donald Trump with his $Billions decides to bring down NBC or the Washington Post because he does not like their coverage of him (and prefers the coverage he receives on FoxNews), then that should be applauded....?
2
Agreed. News that are in the public interest does not include the private stuff that happens in our bedrooms (unless it's illegal) regardless of what Gawker and their defenders think. It's like they don't have their own lives to live, so they feel the need to grab a bag of popcorn and watch us live ours.
1
Yes indeed, only the very wealthy have the right to say anything they want.
2
I am not a noted national legal expert at Stanford or Harvard, but I've practiced law in federal court for 35 years. I don't need to be an expert to tell you that it most certainly DOES matter that Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was backed by a billionaire with an agenda. A billionaire who is backing DJ Trump, no less.
Yes, it matters because appellate judges are human. It may not "legally" matter, but if the result is overturned (and it will be) this revelation will have played a role, no matter what the experts say.
Yes, it matters because appellate judges are human. It may not "legally" matter, but if the result is overturned (and it will be) this revelation will have played a role, no matter what the experts say.
246
I'm not a 35 year attorney- just a 5 year South Texas litigator- but I have watched this thing unfold and what really hurts Gawker is a. the video was presumptively made surreptitiously without Bollea's knowledge or explicit consent, and b. when a circuit court issues an order that the video be removed from Gawker's site they not only refused to comply, they outright flouted the order. I think we all know the massive $140M verdict will never be fully collected- either reduced on appeal or Gawker files for some form of bankruptcy, or gets Bollea to agree to post-judgment negotiations/mediation.
Thiel backing Hogan matters as much as Thiel supporting Trump, which is not at all. You couldn't be more wrong, Counselor.
Would it have been better if Mr. Thiel backed HRC? Why? Isn't justice supposed to be "blind?"
And the case is going to be overturned on appeal, no what the law school faculty thinks? Really? How does one know? Does BHO know?
HH and Mr. Thiel have the resources to go to SCOTUS. See y'all there.
And the case is going to be overturned on appeal, no what the law school faculty thinks? Really? How does one know? Does BHO know?
HH and Mr. Thiel have the resources to go to SCOTUS. See y'all there.
Well, as much as I dislike celebrities leveraging their voice to gain millions from frivolous lawsuits, I do hate Gawker even more.
They destroyed lives. Period.
Those sites similar to Gawker are not true news nor entertainment. They draw audience by meanly caricaturing and degrading successful men and women.
Well done Mr. Thiel.
However, the judicial system should also reform itself to prevent secret donations to fund defenses. That goes against the American ideals of freedom and equality and also undermines both the government and exacerbates tensions. Articles similar to this should not only be viewed as another entertaining read, but should be used to pinpoint problems in American society to fix.
Good reporting today from the New York Times.
They destroyed lives. Period.
Those sites similar to Gawker are not true news nor entertainment. They draw audience by meanly caricaturing and degrading successful men and women.
Well done Mr. Thiel.
However, the judicial system should also reform itself to prevent secret donations to fund defenses. That goes against the American ideals of freedom and equality and also undermines both the government and exacerbates tensions. Articles similar to this should not only be viewed as another entertaining read, but should be used to pinpoint problems in American society to fix.
Good reporting today from the New York Times.
93
@Scott Fortune, @Jason Huang - With your logic only the extremely wealthy will have access to the American judicial system. NOT! Someone with deep pockets sued me. It was a petty, trivial issue but a defense would have cost ~$50,000. I was only able to defend myself by the kindly act of an attorney. He in effect donated my defense. (There was not a chance of a pot of gold at the end of the case.) We lost but I am indebted because without his participation I wouldn't even have had access to the judicial system. I don't see any foul here except for Gawker. Go Hulk!
So while you think it's wrong to have secret donations like this, you hate Gawker so it's okay?
1
Isn't this just help to somebody who is seen as a victim just like the ACLU helps and backs victims in court.?..... I think the greater danger is when somebody with his kind of influence is using it to go after those less fortunate, - The rest does seem to be tabloid like headlines. The wrestler has been an American icon and very little controversial and almost 30 years that I've been a fan do I remember coming out of him. He was illegally filmed.
This is nothing short of terrifying. Gawker has definitely crossed the ethical line at times (although I'm not necessarily sure the Hulk Hogan case did), but the idea that powerful billionaires can essentially launch a crusade against a media outlet they don't like is not good. There's a word for this: chilling...
217
I completely agree. We have created an environment where wealthy people can buy elections, buy verdicts, finance lawsuits for their own personal agenda, this is beyond chilling.
2
Referring to Gawker as a "media outlet" is laughable.. They are worse than the National Enquirer!
1
You are correct but what do you think Sheldon Adelson, who made billions swindling money from gamblers, will do with his new media outlet?
Hyper-capitalism which combines low compliance with tax laws and offshore accounts, by the 1%, will ultimately lead to authoritarian fascism and a breakdown in the communitarian values of the US!
Hyper-capitalism which combines low compliance with tax laws and offshore accounts, by the 1%, will ultimately lead to authoritarian fascism and a breakdown in the communitarian values of the US!
2
Hogan may have shown the tape, talked about his sex life on the radio, but that is his choice.
To say that his having sex is newsworthy is quite a stretch.
The reason, it seems, he was awarded money above what was asked for in damages, most likely was caused by the horrible arrogance of gawker editors when they were on the witness stand.
Their cavalier attitude of gawker's editors toward the damage their "journalism" has caused certainly outraged me.
The real question for me is why it takes a billionaire to fight them.
It is wonderful he has and I am sure his action will cause every journalist from publishing salacious material, usually for the sole purpose of boosting their online views.
To say that his having sex is newsworthy is quite a stretch.
The reason, it seems, he was awarded money above what was asked for in damages, most likely was caused by the horrible arrogance of gawker editors when they were on the witness stand.
Their cavalier attitude of gawker's editors toward the damage their "journalism" has caused certainly outraged me.
The real question for me is why it takes a billionaire to fight them.
It is wonderful he has and I am sure his action will cause every journalist from publishing salacious material, usually for the sole purpose of boosting their online views.
73
Yes, exactly. The editors made it clear that, far from "absence of malice," malice was the intention all along.
All I got from this article was don't tick off a billionaire.
131
All i get is your rights are only as protected as your pockets are deep. I'm involved in a lawsuit right now where the defendant has the resources of his insurance lawyers. They delay and delay as my lawyer costs continue to grow. It's called "suck'em dry" and he'll go away.
3
Hmmm, and I got more from the Comments.
Applauds loudly.
Well done, Mr Thiel.
Well done, Mr Thiel.
30
Trump supporter are you?
2
Great, another example of the 1% using people to get their way. I believe Gawker was wrong to out this guy. However, the only reason he got his way in the end was because he was rich. So rich people now have the option of using other people to litigate things they desire.
I'm so tired of inequality. This litigation means rich people have more rights than poor people, as usual. I don't care if this guy was right in his hatred of Gawker, the fact that he was able to use money to get his way is completely un-American and evil. It's almost like we are living in two completely separate world's with completely separate laws.
I'm so tired of inequality. This litigation means rich people have more rights than poor people, as usual. I don't care if this guy was right in his hatred of Gawker, the fact that he was able to use money to get his way is completely un-American and evil. It's almost like we are living in two completely separate world's with completely separate laws.
303
You can't have freedom without inequality, Jacqueline. Freedom provides equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. It is through Mr. Thiel's brilliance and hard work, as with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, that they have become so crazy rich. What wonders they provided for the rest of us. If we had a government-imposed equality, the only way to attain it, none of those people who have innovated anything.
1
So you would rather see injustice happen to all, as opposed to one person having the means and motivation to challenge the wrong doer? Do you also object to wealthy people funding education or other charitable initiatives?
The point is, people need to get over the 1% hysteria and evaluate whether the greater good was served. In this case, few would argue that it was.
The point is, people need to get over the 1% hysteria and evaluate whether the greater good was served. In this case, few would argue that it was.
3
By the same logic, would it not be unAmerican had Gawker been able to get its way simply because of its own deep pockets? Being able to oppose wealth with wealth in justified litigation does not suppress free speech or freedom, it reminds the rich and powerful that they, too, can be held accountable. Even if only by one of their own. Until we correct the injustices of vast income inequality in our society, this is better than the alternative. That Thiel is a delegate for the Republican demagogue is irrelevant. Though this story may reveal an inconsistency in Thiel's selective libertarianism.
2
"Mr. Thiel was not the only boldface name in Silicon Valley who was outed as gay by Gawker Media — Timothy D. Cook, the chief executive of Apple, is another example."
For all of you claiming that Gawker is seeking truth, what is the purpose here?
Hate Trump all you want, Gawker is a nuisance.
For all of you claiming that Gawker is seeking truth, what is the purpose here?
Hate Trump all you want, Gawker is a nuisance.
63
Coming out remains an emotional roller coaster even in these more enlightened times. People need to do it according to a timetable that they feel comfortable with.
1
Sorry, John Peter Zenger was a nuisance as well. And also bone up on Times v. Sullivan. Mr. Thiel had no case, so he financed another one simply for revenge.
These lawsuits-by proxy are highly troublesome and should be challenged in the courts. The central issue whether plaintiffs are fighting someone else's cause, whose interest is greater. Not only is their standing questionable, it also muddles damages adjudication, awarded on the basis that plaintiffs have been solely and genuinely harmed.
What this article skips asking, is whether Mr. Thiel has any claim to the award, over and above his costs, more importantly if he's upfront forfeited such in his contract with Mr. Bollea. Likely not, which would mean material information for the punitive award process was purposefully withheld from the courts, setting the ground for a challenge. After all, the award process assumes plaintiffs are claiming damages solely on the basis of actual harm done to them and them only. When plaintiffs forfeit award amounts in excess of costs should be cause for the entire award to be thrown out, because it's tantamount to admitting they are there for someone else.
Even costs-only are reimbursement is questionable. If the reimbursing party has greater interest in the outcome than the so-called plaintiff, the court should, at the very least, mandate full disclosure, even allow countersuits. For example, the case filed by Captain Smith against the President, clearly on behalf of other parties whose interest in the case is greater than his own. Not only should the plaintiff standing be denied, Obsma should be allowed to counter-sue.
What this article skips asking, is whether Mr. Thiel has any claim to the award, over and above his costs, more importantly if he's upfront forfeited such in his contract with Mr. Bollea. Likely not, which would mean material information for the punitive award process was purposefully withheld from the courts, setting the ground for a challenge. After all, the award process assumes plaintiffs are claiming damages solely on the basis of actual harm done to them and them only. When plaintiffs forfeit award amounts in excess of costs should be cause for the entire award to be thrown out, because it's tantamount to admitting they are there for someone else.
Even costs-only are reimbursement is questionable. If the reimbursing party has greater interest in the outcome than the so-called plaintiff, the court should, at the very least, mandate full disclosure, even allow countersuits. For example, the case filed by Captain Smith against the President, clearly on behalf of other parties whose interest in the case is greater than his own. Not only should the plaintiff standing be denied, Obsma should be allowed to counter-sue.
36
Read the article again. Thiel says he's not taking any money from Gawker. Nor from Gawkers insurance company.
1
Hogan had an injury independent of Thiel. I don't see why standing is an issue. I don't see why repaying costs is an issue either. When you have a class action lawsuit, if the plaintiffs win their attorneys will be reimbursed their costs and paid fees that usually dwarf any individual recoveries. How is that different? Doesn't the attorney have a greater interest than the plaintiffs?
1
There was no lawsuit by proxy. There was a lawsuit.
3
I have little use for Gawker, but a great deal less for a plutocrat who attempts clandestinely to strangle public discourse, however distasteful. It does not surprise me that he supports the Trump candidacy, since that worthy has already announced that he intends to bring the press (the Times has been specifically mentioned) to heel. "When they came for Gawker Media I said nothing, because I was not an internet gossipmonger..."
353
Gawker was never intended to advance public discourse (though it incidentally may); Gawker is designed to create ad revenue through salacious disclosure. Unless you're suggesting that in all cases, one's sexual orientation and/or sexual prowess are fitting subjects for public discourse.
2
Strangle "public discourse"? A Hulk Hogan sex tape is public discourse? He's barely a celebrity any more. It's no more public discourse than a sex tape of your own.
Denton deserved the judgment. Let's not forget his own editor claimed in his testimony the only celebrity sex tape he would not consider newsworthy would be one involving a child under 4 years old.
That Thiel served as a sort of "legal defense fund" didn't change the facts of the case.
You don't like Thiel because he's smart and he prefers Trump to Hillary. I would suggest those two things correlate strongly. But for you, that means it's time to trot out once again your threadbare Nazi comparisons.
Denton deserved the judgment. Let's not forget his own editor claimed in his testimony the only celebrity sex tape he would not consider newsworthy would be one involving a child under 4 years old.
That Thiel served as a sort of "legal defense fund" didn't change the facts of the case.
You don't like Thiel because he's smart and he prefers Trump to Hillary. I would suggest those two things correlate strongly. But for you, that means it's time to trot out once again your threadbare Nazi comparisons.
3
Since when is somebody's sex life public discourse? Gawker ridicules and humiliates people for no other reason than lurid entertainment value. What goes around comes around.
2
I am not worried about this specific case as I am about "litigation financing." This is just one more thing in American life that is being commoditized. Like health care and education. Does everything is America have to be about money, ultimately? Just like in health care and education, the privileged few will have the ability to fight injustice whereas those without the means (or backers, more precisely) will suffer the injustice.
187
You speak as if this is something that will happen in the future, wake up it's already going on, especially in the judicial system - even family court judges are on the take.
1
Actually, on TV adverts, there are lending companies who claim they will finance personal injury trial cases. Been a lot of stories about this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/magazine/should-you-be-allowed-to-inve...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/magazine/should-you-be-allowed-to-inve...
Yes, "everything in America is about money"
That's why the American Empire is declining.
That's why the American Empire is declining.
1
Always puzzling how people so adept at one thing (starting companies) can be so terrible at other things, such as not being evil tyrants. This "I'm only targetting Gawker" defense is garbage. Any dim-wit can see plainly that cases like this will have a chilling effect on the media. Mr. Thiel is a threat to the country, what a shocker that he's also a Trump dead-ender.
324
Sorry, "media" outlets like Gawker NEED some chilling effect. Ironic how many people wouldn't see a problem with what Gawker does until they are the target.
Hogan's sex tape was not ever a legitimate target for public dissemination. Period. They violated his rights and they're going to suffer as a result. What comes around goes around. Thiel is absolutely right that Gawker is in a category by itself.
Hogan's sex tape was not ever a legitimate target for public dissemination. Period. They violated his rights and they're going to suffer as a result. What comes around goes around. Thiel is absolutely right that Gawker is in a category by itself.
1
Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for Donald J. Trump for the 2016 Republican National Convention.
After reading this my respect for Peter Thiel, as it were, disappeared.
After reading this my respect for Peter Thiel, as it were, disappeared.
523
Thiel is brilliant. One of the most interesting thinkers of our time. Check out his discussion/ talk with Bill Krystol at the Weekly Standard.
1
Me too!!! I was first sympathetic, then admire, then when I saw he supported Little Donald Trump, I realize that most likely, this man would be fem-shaming, closet if given second chance, inwardly homophobic; which explains why he hated it so much to be outed. Again, this is my guess, but who didn't see someone who prefers "masc4masc" on Grinder and thought how pathetic and shallow this is.
2
I am impressed with his philanthropic donations. Gawker is a sleazy rag and I find it admirable that this billionaire spends his efforts helping underserved, underdogs from bottom feeding tabloids. Public figures shouldn't be "outed" just bc some wanna be reporter decides it's the right thing to do. A philanthropic activist, supporting truthful media, while also supporting Drumpf seems like the perfect definition of oxymoron. Still, creds are do for standing up to sleazy "press". Now what are we going to do about that Trump problem? Please tell us he isn't "financing" Trump's campaign.
1
I believe Peter Thiel is right to protect against potential libel against Gawker, but what about other tabloids such National Enquirer and The Globe? Who is going to sue them for libel and slander? With the First Amendment and the universal right of freedom of speech, it may be very difficult for the courts to do more to protect people from sensational yellow journalism
17
It's not libel he's fighting, rather invasion of privacy. There's a difference.
3
Carol Burnett successfully sued the Enquirer for slander. Confidential, a far skeevier rag in the '50s, was successfully sued by Maureen O'Hara, Errol Flynn and Liberace.
2
I was actually rooting for Mr. Thiel until I read, "Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for Donald J. Trump for the 2016 Republican National Convention."
328
That is a sad statement.
"I agreed with everything up until the point I realized he isn't voting like me. Then I reversed my position."
Nothing like standing on principle, eh?
"I agreed with everything up until the point I realized he isn't voting like me. Then I reversed my position."
Nothing like standing on principle, eh?
9
I know, right?
1
I don't like Mr. Trump but can you really make all of your decisions based on whether you agree with someone's political choice? Aren't things more complex than that?
This guy is doing a public service. Gawker overstepped.
This guy is doing a public service. Gawker overstepped.
4
A libertarian, Mr. Thiel is a pledged delegate for Donald J. Trump for the 2016 Republican National Convention.
**********
At least Gawker relies on truth. Trump, on the other hand, disseminates lies like confetti. Wonder how Thiel reconciles that reality.
**********
At least Gawker relies on truth. Trump, on the other hand, disseminates lies like confetti. Wonder how Thiel reconciles that reality.
450
Thiel likely focuses on what he and trump have in common - like a penchant for getting even by attempting to destroy opponents.
7
Why does he have to reconcile it?
Perhaps, he gives the question which you posed no thought at all.
Sorry to say, you might be pondering alone.
Perhaps, he gives the question which you posed no thought at all.
Sorry to say, you might be pondering alone.
1
Political speech is always lies. I thought Missouri was the "show me" state, where mere words had little value. Evidently, even Missouri has sold out to the highest offer. When the most thoughtful among us can no longer resist, it's no wonder we're bombarded with more and more trash talk.
I'm still wondering why Hulk Hogan gets $140 million awarded for a sex tape he made himself and showed to people.
226
Because pictures you take of yourself and may show to your friends are not public domain. They are very personally and professionally damaging, certainly in the case of Hulk Hogan.
Gawker is trash.
Gawker is trash.
90
Hulk Hogan gets $140 because Gawker stole his tape and released it to the public without his consent. Someone can't come into your house and take photos off your coffee table and distribute them for profit or otherwise. That's copyright theft and invasion of privacy even if you may not like the person you're stealing from. If Gawker is a real media outlet then part of its obligation to its readers is to distinguish real news from snark.
31
Your characterization of the facts is false. The jury found that Hogan was secretly recorded (without his consent) and the tape was publicly distributed without his permission. Gawker could have reported the "news" of the tape without turning itself into a broadcaster of unlawfully obtained video pornography.
65
Hogan then changed tactics, dismissing the federal case in favor of pursuing one in Florida state court.
This case was tried in a County/State Court, not Federal.
"A Pinellas COUNTY judge on Wednesday denied Gawker Media's motion and upheld the staggering $140 million in damages awarded to Hogan.
Wednesday's hearing was overshadowed by recent reports that Hogan has had outside help with his legal bills. Forbes reported Tuesday, citing anonymous sources, that Peter Thiel, a PayPal cofounder and early investor in Facebook, "played a lead role" in secretly bankrolling Bollea's lawsuit against Gawker.
"We don't know whether Mr. Thiel is just paying for the defense. We don't know if Mr. Thiel is promising Mr. Bollea some amount of money ... we'd like to get the bottom of it," said Gawker attorney Seth Berlin.
Berlin's request for the judge's permission to investigate the money behind Bollea's lawsuits — there are now two against Gawker — went unheard. When Berlin tried to hand Campbell copies of news reports about Thiel's involvement, the judge wouldn't accept them.
"I don't like looking at all the stuff that's published out there," Campbell said. "It's not healthy."