
Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker - uptown
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html
======
pkinsky
>He added: “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.”

An important reminder of exactly what conduct, on Gawker's part, people are
defending. They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher
purpose. They're scum, and it's pure karma that they're being destroyed by
someone they outed.

~~~
zardgiv
As long as we're quoting someone with an obvious vested interest, how do you
feel about what Gawker points to:

"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.”

It's not so cut and dry, which is why people are rightfully worried about a
billionaire's personal vendetta to destroy a press organization?

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
Just because they published things that have been good journalism allows them
_carte blanche_ to publish things that break the law and are morally
reprehensible? I find this logic baffling.

~~~
nikcub
I find the logic that freedom of speech only applies to journalism you agree
with baffling.

It's straight out of the 21st century authoritarians playbook - nobody is dumb
enough to admit that their actions are against the principles of freedom, but
people are dumb enough to agree with those same actions when you simply
redefine who those principles apply to.

It's the new-newspeak, see how Putin has as much power as any Soviet leader
but with the veneer of democracy, popular support and individual freedom.

~~~
robbiemitchell
Just to be clear, the freedom of speech is not absolute. It _is_ possible to
violate someone else's First Amendment rights while exercising your own, to
the point where a judge or jury must decide who is at fault (if anyone) and
why. The limits to free speech have been shaped over time by laws and by
precedent. In this case, a jury found that Gawker went too far.

------
owenversteeg
I absolutely despise Gawker. The stories they run and the stuff they do would
normally mean that I would love for them to be run into the ground.

At the same time, they are the only independent online media outlet left in
the world. Every other company that once prided itself on being "independent"
from the large media network owned by ancient billionaires has now received at
least hundreds of millions of dollars in investment from them.

Say what you will about the publishing of the tape (and I for one think it was
a despicable action) it certainly showed Gawker's true editorial strength.
They could do whatever the hell they wanted, publishing for the editorial
integrity rather than to get pageviews.

The idea of every single large online media outlet being at least partially
owned by a small group of media companies owned by billionaires is horrifying.
BuzzFeed has a great and fascinating new editorial unit, but they have 200
million reasons not to publish anything that goes against the mainstream
media.

Gawker is a horrible company, but I'm going to miss them.

[edit] Wow, this is really being run into the ground with downvotes. If you
disagree, please don't hesitate to let me know why, as I'm genuinely curious.
My email's in my profile if you'd prefer to contact me there. Cheers!

~~~
lukehorvat
The only independent online media outlet left in the world? What an absurd
statement.

~~~
owenversteeg
I should've clarified, I was referring to large media organizations. An
independent media organization that has no viewers is not terribly useful. If
you know of any independent online media organizations approaching the scale
of Gawker, let me know, I'd love to hear about them.

------
nikcub
Thiel is also apparently financing Shiva Ayyadurai's lawsuit against Gawker.
He is the guy who claims to have invented email as a 14 year old. Both
Techdirt[1] and Gawker[2] wrote about his nonsense claims, but Shiva and Thiel
are suing Gawker.

The sex tape is a little more black and white as a moral argument, but i'd
love to hear justifications for defending a man who is clearly so full of shit
in a case that with Thiel's support he'll likely win.

[0] [http://fortune.com/2016/05/12/gawker-lawsuit-shiva-
ayyadurai...](http://fortune.com/2016/05/12/gawker-lawsuit-shiva-ayyadurai/)

[1]
[https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=shiva+ayyadurai](https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=shiva+ayyadurai)

[2] [http://gizmodo.com/5888702/corruption-lies-and-death-
threats...](http://gizmodo.com/5888702/corruption-lies-and-death-threats-the-
crazy-story-of-the-man-who-pretended-to-invent-email)

~~~
partiallypro
Probably because Theil wants Gawker dead after they were the outlet that outed
him as homosexual. I wouldn't necessarily blame him. Just tying the
publication up in court and legal fees could sink it.

~~~
FireBeyond
Which is the very definition of a chilling effect, however shitty Gawker's
original activities were.

Best hope we don't piss off a m/billionaire who seeks to see us destroyed.

------
internaut
The only thing that should be upsetting about this outcome is that it wouldn't
have happened without clandestine backing by a billionaire. The execution of
justice is not in a healthy state. Arguably Gawker would have not necessitated
an intervention had the justice system been less broken.

The honest reason why some people are bellyaching about this is because they
don't see Thiel/Hogan/Trump as members of their own political tribe. The
rationales they come up with are retroactive justifications because they feel
that they've taken a hit. Part of their political tribe - Gawker, lost out.
Political tribe affiliation wins out over pragmaticism and logic. We all know
very well that Gawker was a nest of Social Justice political advocates.

They ought to ask themselves if Thiel wasn't a Trump Delegate, was not wealthy
but managed to accomplish the same thing, would they still have a problem with
this. I am certain the answer is no. The only change I would have made
personally is that I would have stayed clandestine but then again I'm not as
familiar with SV's political context.

I am much much more disturbed by the funding activities of George Soros than
Peter Thiel. Abuse of power by the rich can be a genuine problem, but this
wasn't an example of that.

It is time to play The Warrior Song!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xo3fwddONA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xo3fwddONA)

Kill with a heart like Arctic Ice!

~~~
bobm_kite9
Finally. Amazing that I had to read through miles and miles of comments siding
with either Thiel or Gawker to get to the real problem:

Why is it that an (already a millionaire) entertainer _needs_ to get a
billionaire on his side just to try and get justice done? This is a totally
crazy state-of-affairs.

------
hysan
I haven't made up my mind on who is right, if there is even a right side to
this situation. But I am wondering one thing:

For those who believe that Thiel's financial backing is unethical because it
makes it unfair, how so? Doesn't that line of logic presume that the court
system is completely ruled by money? Is that how the legal system works in
America? Money wins?

edit: Not sure why I got downvoted. I'm trying to be sincere and express my
disbelief. I really want to hear a well thought out answer cause I really want
to understand the situation and why people just keep repeating that Thiel is
being unethical.

~~~
robbiemitchell
> Is that how the legal system works in America? Money wins?

Ask any small company dealing with a giant patent troll.

~~~
Karunamon
Except the difference here is that Gawker is a multimillion dollar corporate
entity with access to the same tier of representation as Hogan.

This isn't some David vs Goliath story.

~~~
robbiemitchell
That's true, but it doesn't counter the point.

------
Overtonwindow
I support this 100%. Just because someone calls themselves, or could ever be
claimed as, journalists, does not automatically give them a pass in ruining
peoples lives by creating sensationalist stories which has the only purpose of
drawing increased web traffic. Gawker should be taken to task over its
behavior and I hope they are forced out of business.

------
agd
I think the thing to be clear about it that this is not some high and mighty
ethical challenge to Gawker or in defence of privacy (cough cough Palentir).
This is petty revenge writ large by a billionaire.

If it was about principle why was he hiding his actions? This interview is a
pure PR exercise because his involvement was revealed.

The whole story is a sorry mess.

------
madeofpalk
Josh Marshall, from John Gruber:

    
    
        It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They’ve published
        stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy,
        under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that’s a
        far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly
        worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the
        super rich, few publications will have the resources or the death wish to
        scrutinize them closely.
    
    

[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/05/25/marshall-
thiel](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/05/25/marshall-thiel)

[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-huge-
deal](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-huge-deal)

~~~
darawk
This is a poorly thought out argument. He isn't doing anything under-handed or
illegal to destroy Gawker. He isn't fabricating evidence against them or
paying off cops.

He's simply financing a non-spurious lawsuit, which the courts have decided
was legitimate. This is exactly what I want the billionaires in our society
doing.

He may be acting in his own self-interest, but it also happened to align with
the public interest. And if the courts had decided against Hogan, it all would
have been for nothing. There is no grand problem here. He isn't "destroying
publications he wishes to silence", he's augmenting the resources of someone
with a _legitimate legal claim_ against the newspaper.

If you are putting forth the argument that merely financing a lawsuit is a
corruption of the public trust, then we have much more serious problems with
our legal system than Peter Thiel having it out for Gawker. Anyone should be
able to fund any lawsuit that they want, and then the courts will decide if
that lawsuit has merit. That's why we have courts in the first place.

~~~
lazaroclapp
I don't know enough about the case at hand to comment specifically, but
arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone
with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the
general case. Keep in mind that selectively punishing common legal violations
is a common censorship tactic in many places. Consider this case in Mexico:

"On 12 March 2015, two journalists from MVS, Daniel Lizárraga and Irving
Huerta, were fired after they used the station's brand name without permission
in a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on
government corruption" \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Aristegui#Second_firing...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Aristegui#Second_firing_from_MVS)

The legal case, of course, focused on "used the station's brand name without
permission". But the actual reason for their dismissal was "a newly-created
website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption".

Now, I am not saying the Gawker case is or isn't appropriate, but the intent
of the parties matters, if not legally, then morally. When you are using a
lawsuit, not to redress a wrong, but to attack a rival, the fact that the
letter of the law is on your side doesn't make your actions ethical. This is
specially true for governments, but there is no reason why it might not true
for individuals as well (wealthy or not).

~~~
Natsu
> arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone
> with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the
> general case.

In which specific cases is it illegitimate? The only answer I've been able to
come up with is "when you don't like the person or cause."

I mean, if anyone wants to condemn the general case, please remember that
you'll be condemning the EFF, ACLU and many similar organizations.

He could not have done anything at all to them if the cases were not
meritorious. Now, there is a serious problem wherein access to the courts is
effectively gated by wealth, but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that
Gawker was unable to afford lawyers.

One can, however, point to their violation of court orders, along with their
admission in court that they would publish sex tapes for anyone over 4, as
evidence that they have no one to blame but themselves for their loss in
court.

~~~
wpietri
> He could not have done anything at all to them if the cases were not
> meritorious.

That's not true at all. One jury verdict (before appeals have been heard) plus
a bunch of nascent suits is no proof of eventual merit. It could be that every
single one of those cases eventually ends up getting dismissed, or being
awarded negligible verdicts. But because Gawker may not be able to afford a
full defense, they could well be out of business.

Long-time financial journalist Felix Salmon points out the issues here:

[https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/735662530903826437](https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/735662530903826437)

You also write like somebody who has never been on the receiving end of a
lawsuit. They are a painful multi-year distraction and expense even if you
win. My mom was on the receiving end of a lawsuit after a business deal gone
bad. Eventually she won on all counts, and after he had finished reading his
verdict, the judge gave both the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer a royal
dressing down for wasting the court's time. But the stress was incredible for
the whole family, and we still had to pay the defense bills. It was not cheap.

And in Gawker's case, defending themselves against $10m worth of lawyering
could well take them at least $10m no matter the outcome of the cases. News is
not a business rolling in money; publishers go out of business every day even
without being forced to burn unlimited millions. I can and will seriously
argue that Gawker will be unable to afford defense lawyers long before Thiel
will be unable afford lawyers playing offense.

~~~
anamoulous
Have you watched any of the depositions or testimony in this trial? I feel
like the lawyers and Denton were the only people from Gawker who were taking
this case seriously. Time and time again the hostility and outright contempt
coming from the Gawker side only served to undermine their case. AJ Daulerio
specifically, but even his subordinates and Gawker management were trying to
out draw the lawyers every time they were questioned. They did not speak
plainly and they were evasive.

It's true that The Hulk had home field advantage here (and easily arguable
that Gawker being from NYC hurt them even more than The Hulk being from
Florida), but they did themselves no favors at all during the trial. It's like
they gave up and sought to win in appeal.

~~~
wpietri
Personally, I am definitely not interested in defending most of Gawker's
behavior here. I think Denton is a heel, a reprobate, and frequently a fool.

What I do care about is that people recognize that using money to silence
reporting, however lowbrow and however nettlesome, is a step on the road to
oligarchy. The 1st Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. Thiel here
isn't trying to litigate an issue of concern to him. His only goal is to
destroy a publisher, regardless of the merits of plaintiffs' complaints.

Now there are plenty here who are fine with a little oligarchy, and some who
would like quite a lot. If they want to openly argue for that, great. And
plenty of people, me included, have contempt for Denton, and who will enjoy
his eventual comeuppance. But as much as I'd like to see that, I don't want to
see it come with a major chilling effect on our already-mostly-toothless tech
press.

~~~
anamoulous
I'm not making a value judgement on the merits of the case... what I'm saying
is they failed to defend themselves adequately.

This was a winnable case and if they had done a better job we wouldn't be
having this conversation.

~~~
wpietri
Ah, interesting. Sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying!

------
tsycho
I am conflicted about this, and see merits on both sides of the argument on
Thiel's actions. So I tried to draw an analogy:

Let's say that there is some patent troll that only extorts money from small
startups, who don't have the resources to fight back. Some billionaire of
today, who in his past career was harassed by this patent troll, decides (both
for revenge and for the greater good in his opinion) that the patent troll
should die and secretly starts backing startup lawsuits against the troll.

1/ Is this a fair analogy?

2/ Is the press "special" and hence we cannot use analogies from other
industries?

3/ People who disagree with Thiel's actions, would you feel similarly against
the billionaire above?

~~~
chipotle_coyote
1) Not precisely. Suppose the "patent troll" in your example was a company
that had some absurd, dubious patents and made a sizable chunk of their
revenue from them, but was _not_ a non-practicing entity, and actually
produced other products that people generally liked. Beyond that, that they
could prove that they licensed a lot of their patents--both valid and dubious
--pretty reasonably. (In other words, assume things are more complex than
"Everything Gawker Media produces is clearly indefensible.")

2) You can always use analogies from other industries, but you can also make a
case that in the United States the press _is_ something of a special case.
It's the only private industry specifically given constitutional protection in
the Bill of Rights. It's certainly worth asking--and potentially litigating--
whether Gawker violated both Thiel's and Hogan's right to privacy, but we give
the press more latitude than we do other industries for a reason.

3) In the example as you _outlined_ it, where a "patent troll _only_ extorts
money from small startups," I wouldn't feel the same despite disagreeing with
Thiel's actions in this case.

The difference, beyond what I've suggested above in (1) and (2), is one of
precedence. People are focusing, understandably, on the specifics of this
particular case. But we don't know wat other cases Thiel is funding against
Gawker; we don't know what the merits are. And that's the whole thing: a
billionaire unhappy with the way a media outlet has covered him doesn't need
to find _winnable_ libel and defamation suits against that outlet; he just
needs to find ones good enough to get to trial and cost tens of millions of
dollars to defend. If Thiel funded a half-dozen _losing_ cases against Gawker,
he might still bankrupt them.

And, again: precedent. What if instead of Peter Thiel this was Donald Trump?
Hillary Clinton? George Soros? David Koch? What if the ultimate reason for the
vendetta was because they brought out embarrassing secrets that _were_ in the
public interest?

While I understand why everyone is focusing on the "Gawker? Couldn't happen to
a more deserving company, ha ha ha" aspect of all this, free speech cases
don't always revolve around noble defenders with noble goals. As wary as I am
of slippery slope arguments (use one once and you'll use them everywhere),
"hey, this couldn't possibly happen to someone who's less of a jerk than Nick
Denton" seems uncomfortably close to magic thinking.

------
jondubois
It's quite bourgeois of Peter Thiel to concern himself with such petty things.
He should focus his ego, his money and his attention on more important
matters. Nobody really cares about him and his famous friends being offended
by Gawker - In fact, quite a lot of people enjoy reading that crap. Since when
is Mr Thiel's emotional comfort more important than the people's right to
information (albeit gossip)?

If I could be as wealthy as Peter Thiel, I wouldn't give a damn about what the
media wrote about me. Maybe I would just quietly cry myself to sleep in my
gold-plated bed inside my luxurious NYC penthouse.

------
vonnik
Thiel's multiple cases against Gawker are a death knell for American
journalism. To be clear, I don't like Gawker's approach to journalism, and I
disagree with their decision to out Thiel and expose Hogan. If Gawker goes
under, the world will not be a poorer place. But the PRECEDENT that Thiel is
setting is deeply disturbing, and it will hurt US democracy. When any
billionaire can sue any publication into bankruptcy anonymously over any story
they ever wrote, all publications will eventually belong to another oligarch,
because that is the only way they'll survive. And the stories that
publications write are a reflection of their owners, which means the oligarchs
will exert even more influence on the American mind than they already do. This
will cast a chill on independent journalism, and limit the voices that we
read. Thiel is right as an individual case, and horrible if you go one layer
of abstraction above that.

------
johansch
This is commendable. Gawker is scum.

~~~
zardgiv
His stated goal, "deterrence," is the exact thing people talk about when they
worry about a chilling effect.

The fact that people are applauding because it's someone they disagree with
whose ox is getting gored is really disappointing for a community that
espouses such strong freedom of speech principles.

~~~
int_19h
There's a difference between freedom of speech, and freedom to violate privacy
of others.

I don't have any problem with deterrence - or "chilling effect", if you prefer
to word it that way - on the latter.

It's unfortunate that it requires a millionaire to fund the court case to get
us there; but the only cause for concern here is that someone else might see
their privacy similarly violated, and not have a rich sponsor to pay the legal
bills for personal reasons.

~~~
uola
"There's a difference between freedom of speech, and freedom to violate
privacy of others."

I think that is a very dangerous way to look at thing. The right to privacy is
a limitation to freedom of speech. You might think that it's a reasonable
limitation in this case, but it's still a limitation and not something
different.

~~~
int_19h
Sure, it is a limitation on freedom of speech. Copyright is also a limitation
to freedom of speech, as are libel and slander laws. In a society where free
speech is absolute, if I have more money than you, I can destroy your
reputation, and possibly your entire life, by spreading false information
about you, and you would have no recourse. Is that a good thing?

------
brianmcconnell
Two important points here.

#1 Gawker did not out Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel outed Peter Thiel. Back when
Friendster was a thing he had a public profile which featured him shirtless on
a boat which clearly advertised his interest in handsome men. So on the scale
from Closet Queen to Totes Obvious, he was more on the side of totes obvi. It
was also the worst kept secret in San Francisco, particularly if you had any
latin friends. So Owen Thomas was right in concluding that Thiel was already
out when he ran his "Peter Thiel is totally gay" piece because it wasn't news
to anybody.

#2 if Hulk Hogan is claiming injury and embarrassment from a sex tape, why did
he make a sex tape? Yes, Gawker is muck raking trash (I just read it for the
comments!), but they trade in such material. Unless I am missing something,
Gawker didn't trick him into making a sex tape. Common sense would tell you
that if you don't want your sex tape on the Internets, don't make a sex tape
in the first place.

~~~
michaelwww
> #2 if Hulk Hogan is claiming injury and embarrassment from a sex tape, why
> did he make a sex tape?

Hulk Hogan said he did not know the tape was being made so could not consent
to it. He was not consulted about it's release and would not have authorized
it. The jury agreed with him.

~~~
brianmcconnell
Then why isn't he suing his "friend" who made the sex tape without his
consent? That's the original sin then. I am answering my own question here
(Gawker has more money than his friend!)

~~~
detaro
The "friend" settled out of court. As far as I know the matter how the tape
got to Gawker then wasn't resolved in the case.

------
mrep
Bad policy. If you don't like what they are doing based on moral grounds, then
use your money and influence to educate people on why what they are doing is
bad. That has a better chance of stomping out this problem for good.

Taking a vendetta like this by trying to sue them out of business is just
playing whack a mole. Another company will rise out of their ashes.

~~~
MichaelBurge
You might as well be educating Russian malware spammers on why emailing people
phishing scams and keyloggers is wrong.

We could get some ethics professors to write a monograph on the subject; maybe
that would enlighten them.

~~~
MBCook
Crud. Sorry for the accidental down vote.

------
VonGuard
As someone who wrote for Denton, I'm shocked to learn how much $ Gawker was
making. He paid writers as little as $5 a post.

~~~
55555
Link to the $5 figure, or their financials? Sounds interesting.

~~~
VonGuard
Not linking to my financials... The figure in the stories I've seen pegged his
earnings at $6 million a year on $44 million revenue. $5 a post is a years old
number, but still.

------
627467
Seems likes the impression of a self-righteous, wealthy industrialist who is
trying to shutdown speech he dislikes. I mean, if you're pulling a gilded-age
industrialist stunt at least go out and build your own media outlet.

Keep speech plural.

No, I don't feel like I need to justify whether I read Gawker or not; or
whether I agree with Gawker as a publication or not. If you don't like one
article go and take it down if you got legal standing. Why go nuclear?

PS. I know little about P. Thiel and his political and social stances. The
impression I got of him are from headlines like: "Billionaire investor Peter
Thiel's plan to pay college students to drop out..." and "Libertarian Island:
A billionaire's utopia". And now "Billionaire Peter Thiel funded Hulk Hogan
lawsuit to take down Gawker"... Is there a decent biography out there worth
reading?

------
whatok
Thought experiment. Let's suppose I was previously the victim of police
brutality. Later on in life, I became a billionaire and decided I wanted to do
something with my money. I decide to fund every lawsuit in the country against
all police departments. Is this okay?

~~~
internaut
Providing for the lawsuits to be based on credible grounds, then absolutely
yes. We want strong law enforcement based on appropriate use of force and
judges that can intelligently apply discretion. With humans that is about as
much as you can hope for. There exists grey areas but policemen who decide to
strike by not intervening when they could prevent violence are not the right
of people we needed in the first instance. In fact that would be a double win
because we would be selecting for the police officers with better intuitions.

------
billhendricksjr
Is it wrong for me to be amused at how much I dislike all parties involved in
this story?

------
cwisecarver
This is what I sent to my wife about this story earlier today. I think it's
true for the public too.

"I guess people can do whatever they want with their money. For me the bottom
line is that Hogan is a public figure and the definition of “newsworthy” isn’t
up to anyone other than media to decide on. Sure, it’s tacky as fuck to report
on him fucking his best friends wife and it isn’t any of anyone’s business but
the market can decide if gawker should be in business or not. It shouldn’t be
able to decide what they are or are not allowed to report so long as they’re
true."

It's creepy that the billionaires can fund lawsuits against the media because
they wrote something that the billionaire didn't like but that's a free
market. I don't think anyone that reads Jezebel or gawker or valleywag is
going to stop reading it because Nick Denton publishing something about an ex-
pro wrestler fucking a dj's wife. That's their market.

The people decided this verdict was just. I think it's ridiculous but then
again Trump is probably running against Clinton for the leader of the free
world so you get what you get.

~~~
mhaymo
The market cannot decide that invading an individual's privacy for their
entertainment is ok. The negative externality there is massive.

------
tryitnow
Does anybody know why Gawker thought it was such a great idea to publish the
tape? And not just to publish but to keep it up despite warnings from
authorities?

Is this something that is normal among tabloid outfits? I have no idea because
I really don't follow tabloids.

------
AndrewKemendo
In case anyone from the NY Times online is reading this, they have a bug in
their super fancy navigation UI:

Left or right click drag opens a new story. This would be fine, except if you
want to select text it de-facto opens a new story.

------
andywood
It's really no use criticizing some random individual for using their money to
buy something that's for sale. If you don't want a thing to be bought, you
have to find some way to make it not for sale.

------
perseusprime11
The only safe way for Theil to come out of this is for him to double down and
setup a legal defense fund for all the innocent people who get harassed by
Gawkers of the world.

------
james1071
I really don't see what the problem is.

What does it matter who funded his legal case?

------
ninv
My takeaway from this whole story, We can't get justice without lot of money.
Which is sad.

Hogan/Bollea should be able to fight his case without Mr. Thiel's financial
support.

------
jgalt212
Peter Thiel is snake because he took these actions in actions in secret.

If he had been open from the start, then I may have a different opinion of
him.

------
TaylorGood
That's about as strong of a maneuver as it gets on Peter's part. To devise
such a plot, bravo.

------
dvhh
I am very very conflicted about this, do we classify Gawker network as blogs
or journalism ?

------
Aelinsaar
There's always a bigger fish.

------
android521
Why did Peter Thiel supports Trump? It is unimaginable.

~~~
greatnorthz
Trump has support in a lot of places that you wouldn't expect, few will admit
supporting him in public because they get responses like it is 'unimaginable'.
Thiel has the money/power so there's nothing for him to fear.

~~~
testrun
and he really does not care

------
nefitty
Thiel claims to despise "massive privacy violations" on the part of groups
like Gawker, yet he was one of the co-founders of Palantir. These people are
just narcissists who want revenge for someone splashing mud on their boots.
They're not fighting for our privacy, or for the common good. Sorry buddy, you
are worth more than 99.999% of us. That makes you a significant figure and
thus newsworthy. Your sexual orientation gives people some insight into
whether you would support a certain political party, activists groups, etc.
I'm just astonished at the tone deafness of this guy's comments.

~~~
cissou
I might be interpreting your words, but are you suggesting that being
extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy?

~~~
danso
I can't speak for the other commenter or for other countries, but in the U.S.,
being "extremely wealthy", to the point where you've become a public figure,
changes the standard of privacy and slander in the eyes of the court:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan)

> _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United
> States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which
> has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered
> to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil
> rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key
> decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard
> requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a
> "public figure", prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew
> that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or
> falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and
> the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such
> cases—but only when they involve public figures—rarely prevail._

As it's taught in journalism schools, this precedent is seen as the major
driver of American press freedom.

------
perseusprime11
Nothing new here. People with power, money and influence can do shady things.
Facebook with trending news, Peter Theil with funding suit against
Gawker...they are all the same.

------
Jugurtha
Beyond good and evil and morals, I think Thiel is being really gentlemanly
about this. How hard would it have been to get very good looking people to
seduce the people responsible (or their spouses, offsprings, parents), have
some wild stuff going on, get that on video, and publish that online...

Would Gawker still feel as strongly about freedom of expression when their
significant other's or their daughters'/sons'/parents' legs are spread all
over the internet? If that video was sent to them, would they publish
something like "Watch the sextape of the people who pulblished Hogan's
sextape",

I can think of _many_ , _many_ ways Thiel could have harmed them. He's a very
smart man and I'm sure he could think of many more, but he held back going at
it in a civilized manner only legally backing a law-suit.

