
Koch group, Craigslist founder come to Techdirt's aid - artsandsci
https://www.axios.com/charles-koch-foundation-craigslist-founder-come-to-aide-of-site-facing-libel-suit-2470692791.html
======
FloayYerBoat
It never ceases to amaze me how many "journalists" still deride the Gawker
lawsuit. Are they offended that they cannot publish anyone's personal sex tape
without permission?

Keep in mind, a celebrity did not have enough money to take on a shittly
little website in a lawsuit, so even he had to find another backer. Imagine if
Gawker decided to publish your private info. Would you have enough money to
defend your privacy?

~~~
chipotle_coyote
_Keep in mind, a celebrity did not have enough money to take on a shittly
little website in a lawsuit, so even he had to find another backer._

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the
backer in question didn't give a shit about Hulk Hogan and his sex tape,
beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that he
already wanted to take out. (If this was just up to Hogan, he'd likely have
taken one of the settlements offered, and almost certainly wouldn't have
dropped the claim of "negligent infliction of emotional distress," a move
whose only point was to prevent Gawker's insurance company from being able to
cover any part of the damages.) In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that
Thiel backed _several_ lawsuits against Gawker, including one from the same
yoyo who claims to have invented email that's suing Techdirt now. And Thiel
won't say if he's bankrolling Ayyuadurai's lawsuit against Techdirt, which is
being brought by the same attorney Thiel hired for Hogan. What a strange
coincidence!

Celebrity rags being sued isn't a precedent; having a billionaire fund other
people's lawsuits until he finds one that sticks is. And there's a small but
non-zero chance that the lawsuit we're talking about right now _is one of
those lawsuits,_ and unlike the Hogan case, the plaintiff is clearly in the
wrong. Journalists, and I won't put the snide air quotes around the word,
aren't that worried about the "if you publish somebody's leaked sex tape you
can get sued for it" part of this matter. They're worried about the _other_
part.

~~~
msla
> beyond that lawsuit being a convenient stalking horse against a target that
> he already wanted to take out.

OK, so why did he have it in for Gawker?

They outed him as gay against his will while he was in Saudi Arabia.

(Edited To Add: I can't find any _good_ cites saying he was in Saudi Arabia at
the time, so I don't know one way or the other right now. Regardless, the
outing itself was morally wrong, so my argument doesn't change.)

That's behavior which should be punished, morally, even if it isn't illegal.
It's certainly behavior which anyone with a brain can realize would lead to
making the person you outed an enemy.

It seems Gawker's main sin was making an enemy of someone who could hurt them,
and the injustice here is that most assholes don't have such enemies.

~~~
matt4077
The Gawker case was terrible precisely because Gawker kinda deserved it.

Legally, there wasn't much that Thiel could do, which is why he found another
way to get his revenge.

The problem: Thiel's reason for bankrupting Gawker didn't need to be somewhat
reasonable. He could have used the exact same tactics for any other reason.
What if he gets angry at politico.com because they write articles criticising
his favourite politician?

The only barrier to complete control of the media by a select number of
plutocrats is that the specific case he used (the sex tape) was so egregious
that you won't be able to make similar cases against serious publishers.

And that's why this article is relevant: it's about some guy's obsession with
being recognised as the inventor of e-mail. If he wins, ruining any publisher
would become a whole lot easier overnight. Because if this plaintiff was
anywhere near the invention of email, it may come down to a subjective
judgement of assigning "inventor" status.

In general, it seems to me that the results of the American justice system are
vastly better than people give it credit for, and I'd be pretty confident that
a jury, or any of a number of courts along the way to the SC would ensure some
proportionality. But the scary thing is that only one in a hundred of such
cases succeeding would be enough to seriously imperil the freedom of the
press.

~~~
msla
> What if he gets angry at politico.com because they write articles
> criticising his favourite politician?

OK, what if Politico.com doesn't do anything illegal or actionable subsequent
to that?

The only reason Thiel had the power he had over Gawker is that Gawker did
something which was actually, legally wrong after it wronged him in a non-
actionable fashion. Unless you have both of those elements, Thiel would have
been powerless to redress the grievance he had in any very quick fashion. He
could have done other things, but Gawker did him the favor of stepping onto
the firing range after they painted the target on themselves.

> The only barrier to complete control of the media by a select number of
> plutocrats is that the specific case he used (the sex tape) was so egregious
> that you won't be able to make similar cases against serious publishers.

Rephrase: "The only barrier to complete control of the media by a select
number of plutocrats is that most of the media can refrain from doing
flagrantly illegal bullshit."

> And that's why this article is relevant: it's about some guy's obsession
> with being recognised as the inventor of e-mail. If he wins, ruining any
> publisher would become a whole lot easier overnight.

He isn't going to win. People who can dispute his claims totally are still
alive (OK, one of the main people has died, but you don't have to be the
inventor to disprove this yahoo) and plenty of records have been kept.

Thiel is funding a loser of a case here, and, despite what some people
believe, an expensive lawyer can't save a loser of a case.

------
bpicolo
It appears that yes, it's the exact same person who's been trying to take
credit for inventing email for ages.

[https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/11/03/mit-
grad-...](https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/11/03/mit-grad-who-
claims-he-invented-email-wins-piece.html)

[http://fortune.com/2016/03/07/who-really-invented-
email/](http://fortune.com/2016/03/07/who-really-invented-email/)

> He has trademarked "The Inventor of Email"

------
basseq
I'm glad that these donors are funding Techdirt's defense... in the same way
that I'm glad Peter Thiel backed Hogan against Gawker.

If two parties go to court over a dispute, there should be equal "firepower"
on both sides so justice can be served. Gawker lost the Hogan suit because
Thiel's funding _allowed_ that suit to be brought in the first place. Thus,
arguments that Thiel's funding was "unfair" equates to logic that Hogan
shouldn't have won because he shouldn't have been "allowed" to seek justice in
the first place.

The same argument follows here. Threatening a suit that the defendant is not
"allowed" to defend (because they can't afford it) is the real injustice.

This is still a band-aid on the real problem: that economic inequality can buy
justice.

~~~
aetherson
It sure was nice of Thiel to help poor down-and-out Terry Bollea, who hardly
has two dimes to rub together. Unless you count his $25 million or so.

~~~
basseq
It's relative. Thiel contributed a reported $10M. As an individual, it’s
difficult to be able/willing to spend _a third of your net worth_ to pursue a
lawsuit.

I didn’t see any accusation that the Gawker lawsuit was won because Hogan
spent more money. Thus: “fair justice” was served and _the amount of money_
doesn’t matter. Thiel’s contribution enabled Hogan (necessary or not) to seek
“fair justice”—which I have a hard time finding fault with.

Likewise in this case. Donors are _enabling_ TechDirt to seek “fair justice”
in court. Good on them.

Bottom line: money should not be the deciding factor in a court case, either
in your ability to win it or bring one in the first place.

------
guelo
American democracy is over, it is impossible to make governmental change in a
way that benefits the public. We are left with different billionaires battling
each other and the rest of us hoping that some benevolent billionaire will
take up our cause.

------
tryingagainbro
I am disappointed that a lawfirm didn't take this as pro-bono. Also where's
ACLU with their fundraising network ready?

The suing party might be in for a surprise...while the initial commitment
might be for $250K, I doubt the backers like to lose in this case, so money is
not an object. What's a few million for them? Nothing!

------
zebraflask
Good. The guy obviously didn't invent email, and the claim, on its face,
doesn't need much comment to highlight how bizarre it is. Regardless of
anyone's opinions about Gawker, Peter Thiel, the Koch group, etc., he
shouldn't be allowed to abuse the legal system like this.

------
wslh
Kudos to Union Square Ventures too. Fred Wilson previously commented about
this at [http://avc.com/2017/01/protecting-the-right-to-speak-and-
wri...](http://avc.com/2017/01/protecting-the-right-to-speak-and-write-and-
blog/)

------
Overtonwindow
"some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-
resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit — which some have called the Gawker
Effect."

That's not correct and misses the point of the Gawker lawsuits. The Gawker
Effect is that journalists are now, for perhaps the first time in modern
history, contemplating if a story going to print is actually news, or merely
gossip.

