
Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy - dirtyaura
http://fusion.net/story/306927/peter-thiel-gawker-dangerous-blueprint/
======
gonmf
Gawker are scum. They disobeyed a court order. They deserved the lawsuit. If
you want freedom of speech to out people and attack everyone, expect people
with money to use said money to fight back legally. It's their freedom too.

~~~
arielm
I completely agree and don't get why so many people are so grossly upset.

Peter Thiel didn't use his money to bribe anyone, he didn't do anything
illegal for Hulk. The court made a decision and Gawker needs to live with the
consequences...

~~~
internaut
It's all about one word. Tribalism.

A lot of people feel Gawker was a member of their tribe. It's the old "He's a
bastard, but he's our bastard" thing.

~~~
arielm
I guess. Until Gawker finds something juicy on them...

------
yummyfajitas
I have no idea why everyone thinks this is doing something unusual. Using
lawsuits to stifle free speech is commonplace.

For example, using lawsuits to stifle climate skepticism:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenae...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-
into-silence-on-global-warming)

Hillary Clinton was famous for shutting down free speech - her critics had to
go all the way to the supreme Court to protect their right to criticize
politicians (see citizens united).

Or see SPLC vs Aryan Nation, which is exactly some wealthy philanthropists
funding a lawsuit by a third party: [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-
hate/extremist-files/grou...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-
hate/extremist-files/group/aryan-nations)

The only thing new about this is that the mainstream media suddenly notices
this stuff hitting closer to home.

~~~
jonathankoren
The thing that makes it unusual is that he's acting in secret and actively
soliciting lawsuits he has no interest in, and structures the lawsuits to
remove incurable claims because he has a personal vendetta against a media
outlet that he doesn't like.

If you can't see the difference between working in public against a violent
racist organization and a petulant billionaire waiting 7 years to throw a
bunch of middle class people out of work, and send a message to the media at
large to play nice with him, because he got his feelings hurt, I can't help
you.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I can clearly see the difference. Aryan nations is on the other team while
gawker is on your team.

Incidentally, middle class people worked for Aryan Nation also.

~~~
jonathankoren
Go back to 8chan.

------
insane_dreamer
There are so many things wrong with this article that I don't even know where
to start.

* Gawker does not deal in journalism any more than Keeping up with the Kardashians does. It's an entertainment company that makes a profit by exposing details of people's lives which other people have no business knowing. There's an argument to be made that the world be better off with that type of gutter "journalism". It's not giving people "news" which they "have a right to know" (the kind of thing for which journalism needs to be protected).

* But if we accept that Gawker has the right to its thing - and it does - then Gawker has to accept the consequences of pissing people off - which is usually solves through litigation insurance. If it gets sued out of existence, it's its own fault, no one else's.

* Thiel did not "take down" or "punish" Gawker. A court of law punished Gawker for breaking the law. The fact that Thiel paid the defendants attorneys is irrelevant. If we have a problem with that, then we could pass laws to disallow third parties from funding other people's law suits which would have terrible consequences (no more ACLU, for example).

* If the argument is that "the person with the most money wins lawsuits", I don't disagree. But that is a problem with the justice system, not Thiel.

* We can't have "freedom of speech" without "freedom to sue", otherwise these entertainment "news" outlets can easily ruin the lives of people for profit (as they do).

------
Jun8
"Later asked by an attorney for Hogan if there was a situation in which a
celebrity sex tape might not be newsworthy, Delaurio responded: “If they were
a child.”

The attorney then asked him to specify: a child under what age? Daulerio
responded: “Four.”"

This was the Gawker editor who came up with the sex tape and story. This sums
up the the anything goes interpretation of free speech these people have.
(Although he later said he was being flippant, that's even worse in exposing
his infantile psychology).

OTOH, Thiel's ruthless use of the suing machine also leaves a bitter taste.
This is a case where it's hard to totally root for either side.

~~~
mkawia
Yeah ,There are no good guys here.

Criticizing Thiel shouldn't be confused with supporting Gawker , because we
don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next

~~~
strangecasts
Yeah, it scares me that people are accepting this as "philanthropy"
uncritically.

~~~
Kristine1975
FWIW I would never have considered Thiel's actions to be philanthropy. Which
is why I was so confused when reading the headline "Peter Thiel's dangerous
blueprint for perverting philanthropy."

------
gh-lfneu28
From the article: "Historically, news publications have treated certain
subjects very carefully: if you’re rich and [...] litigious, then [...]
organizations will have lawyers do a careful review of anything they write
about you [...]"

Well, if they would now have to "do a careful review" of __everything __they
write for the fear of vengeful billionaire going after them, nobody would shed
a tear.

But obviously that wont be a solution.

~~~
pervycreeper
He seems to be saying that vetting info about people who are not known to have
enough resources to pursue legal remedy themselves is too large a hardship for
journalists to endure. In all of the voluminous writing about this topic this
week, I have yet to encounter a single good objection to what Thiel is doing.
I'm honestly mystified by why so many people are objecting to this.

~~~
internaut
There are no good logical or legal arguments that I've heard so far. It's all
hand waving furiously.

~~~
shrewduser
It's scummy journalists all circling the wagons as they feel one of their own
is under attack.

that's why you won't find logical or reasonable arguments from them.

------
CM30
I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes
it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't
like by funding any possible lawsuit against them.

But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and
the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that
potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn't have
the right to post this content and didn't care that the courts found against
them.

And when you consider that millionaires and billionaires often own media
outlets as well, that can be worrying as well. What about a Murdoch esque
figure trying to push their own views on society (and discredit opponents)
through their newspapers and publications?

What Thiel did here is potentially worrying, but so are the other
possibilities from the media site.

~~~
TheCondor
The issue to me seems that it is just accepted that you need lots of money to
use the law properly. If it was just some rando who had his sex tape published
by gawker shouldn't he be able to sue them and materially affect them? That he
can't or there is the widely accepted belief that he can't is the problem.

Rich guys have extracted revenge on others since there has been wealth, there
is nothing new here except the belief that maybe Hogan somehow wouldn't have
had a case without Thiel's help? Or maybe gawker could have delayed and played
games to price Hogan out of a law suit or something? How isn't that messed up?
Sure I get the fear of tons of frivolous law suits but what about serious
ones? The poor can't take part.

The Internet has brought on an entire generation of "journalists" without
limits, the pendulum will swing back, that's how things tend to work. Gawker
and the others were going to continue to push boundaries in the name of
profit, not news, until somebody fought back and it should have been long
before a celebrity sex tape. It shouldn't take a billionaire backed lawsuit.

------
PeterisP
So the point of the article is complaining that instead of reviewing if
publishing some dirt about a few billionaires is within the legal boundaries,
Gawker and others might have to do the same if they want to simply throw some
dirt about ordinary plebeians as well? (Unpossible! Why would they deserve
that?)

And that their plan to continue performing illegal actions because, well, they
have bought insurance and can settle their claims with their money has been
foiled - well, what has happened to the concept why these laws were made in
the first place, that such claims should be an effective deterrent to actually
change their behavior?

Gawker made their own bed there. Actions that result in such behavior becoming
impractical not only for Gawker, but also for all other publications are
(contrary to the OP viewpoint) not only permissible, but even necessary.

------
idot
Such as a terrible article. Trying to paint Gawker as David. Gawker needs to
be shut down, I hope Thiel never stops funding.

------
hokkos
Because you need a team of lawyers to know that you shouldn't leak a sextape
on your site? Thiel didn't need a team of lawyers to scrutinize every article
too, the sextape case was big enough he could know it by himself. The press
shouldn't have a free pass to publish every salacious article, and should face
the consequences of its actions. Great to see the press establishment
defending its cast with such fallacious arguments.

------
Kristine1975
_> Gawker is a fast-moving site; it can’t (and doesn’t) carefully lawyer every
single thing it publishes._

Maybe it should move slower then. And report, you know, responsibly.

~~~
CM30
This is a great point. If media outlets stopped being so obsessed with
publishing anything and everything for clicks (without checking if it was
newsworthy, legal or moral to do so), then cases like this would be much fewer
and far between.

------
brudgers
Related opinion on the legal aspect of funding the legal fees of other people:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2016/05/26/peter-thiels-funding-of-hulk-hogan-gawker-litigation-
should-not-raise-concerns/)

Like most things in adversarial law, it looks to me like an atom-blaster that
can point both ways.

------
zekevermillion
Philanthropy = funding projects to make the world a better place, without
making a financial profit. This legal campaign is clearly philanthropic,
whether or not you like the outcome.

------
vixen99
'The news that (Peter Thiel) just gave the world a master class in how a
billionaire can achieve enormous ends with a relatively modest investment'

Off topic but this case is nothing compared to the master class run by Geoge
Soros in showing how a billionaire can pervert democracy by funding massive
social engineering in all the countries of the European Union.

As Viktor Orban has said "George Soros has published a comprehensive six-point
plan promoting the movement of migrants into Europe, in which he has declared
that at least one million Muslims should be let into Europe every year.
According to this they must be given safe passage, and Europe should be
pleased to receive such an opportunity, rather than try to resist it. He also
said that this will cost a lot of money, and he will provide the credit
needed".

