Peter Thiel Is Said to Bankroll Hulk Hogan’s Suit Against Gawker

[hrugner]

The scary question is, how will this affect all journalists, both Fair and Fox.

I mean, someone with a vendetta, or a shitload of money, Why_not_both.gif, can bankroll cases to bankrupt any news group.

It depends on what happens when the records on this get unsealed. A huge chunk of the case paper work is stuff only seen by the judge and kept sealed as proprietary to an enforcement branch other than the police force. So it could have a chilling effect for news organizations who find themselves treating unwilling porn clips as news, being investigated by the FBI and bailed out by a sometimes criminal Russian materials holder, but I think most groups can call it good and assume that they probably aren't doing anything illegal.

[Deleted]

The issue is that when major financiers can bankroll lawsuits they have part in whatsoever, it leads to all kinds of other problems. It puts media publications at risk from prohibitively expensive lawsuits from wealthy financiers who want them closed down for whatever reason but have no legal challenges to bring against them themselves.

Trust me, the day Gawker closes and all their writers end up begging on Patreon for money (except the Jalopnick guys, they're alright folks), I'll do a happydance. But not when it puts all news companies at risk at the same time.

Have to agree. Thiel is playing this like an evil genius.

Threatens retribution if they out him as gay. Doesn't sue for the articles. Instead waits until they post thousands upon thousands more. For years! Gets a legal team to go through them all and look for promising cases. Spends millions on it. Unleashes endless lawsuits against Gawker to drain all of the money. Destroys Gawker.

Now those are blueprints any billionaire can use to shut down any media they don't like.

Scary stuff really.

[PC2]

This dude sounds like a total badass. He started the Stanford Review, a libertarian newspaper that criticizes political correctness and the abuse of hate speech laws. Wrote the Diversity Myth, significantly funds artificial intelligence and science in general, and much more!

[Wells]

Gawker might be a tabloid rag, but either way, billionaires using the civil court system as a proxy war against organizations they don't like, particularly press outlets, is not something to be pleased about.

If you file suit after suit after suit at the same people you'll get told to fuck off. But if you're rich you can just get a string of other people to do it instead.

- - - Updated - - -

This dude sounds like a total badass. He started the Stanford Review, a libertarian newspaper that criticizes political correctness and the abuse of hate speech laws. Wrote the Diversity Myth, significantly funds artificial intelligence and science in general, and much more!

Also blames the demise of "capitalist democracy" on women's suffrage and the poor getting to vote. He's a first rate tool.

- - - Updated - - -

Mother Jones had something similar happen to them. While they won, it was exceedingly costly for them to do so.

[PC2]

Also blames the demise of "capitalist democracy" on women's suffrage and the poor getting to vote. He's a first rate tool.

Actually I think he is right about the main point, which is that woman tend to have worse values in relation to liberty, autonomy, and anti-authoritarianism.

[Wells]

Actually I think he is right about the main point, which is that woman tend to have worse values in relation to liberty, autonomy, and anti-authoritarianism.

And apparently its on a time action delay or something, since the 19th amendment was 1920

Also are you really saying that women are more likely to be authoritarian than men? Do you have anything to support that?

[Sesshou]

Trust me, the day Gawker closes and all their writers end up begging on Patreon for money (except the Jalopnick guys, they're alright folks), I'll do a happydance. But not when it puts all news companies at risk at the same time.

Not really *all*. Maybe all the news companies that do click bait journalism. And they can go down too for all I care. Maybe we can get back to the times when the news was impartial facts instead of something you spin to get your point across.

[Wells]

Not really *all*. Maybe all the news companies that do click bait journalism. And they can go down too for all I care. Maybe we can get back to the times when the news was impartial facts instead of something you spin to get your point across.

When was that?

[oplawlz]

Honestly seems like an abuse of the system, almost like the court case equivalent of hiring a hitman (but not Bret "The Hitman" Hart to make a wrestling reference xD)

Funding justice is hardly an abuse of the system.

[Ivanstone]

Careful what you might wish for.

When does Hillary sue Fox for their Benghazi coverage? She's survived multiple congressional hearings and they still play the Benghazi card.

All Gawker did was out Hogan for being a racist and "out" Peter Thiel for being a self-loathing gay man who funds homophobic politicians.

[Wells]

Funding justice is hardly an abuse of the system.

Third party funding isn't an abuse. Third party funding done entirely to fuel a vendetta, especially when its done at the plaintiff's risk, is almost certainly. It appears that part of Thiel's funding was contingent on Hogan filing the complaint in such a way that Gawker, and not the insurance they have for this sort of thing, has to pay, which made Hogan's case far riskier and was probably not in his best interests.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention Thiel helped fun the whole ACORN "take down" so any claims he makes about going after bad journalism can be shoved up his ass.

[PC2]

Also are you really saying that women are more likely to be authoritarian than men? Do you have anything to support that?

Yes in terms of statism, no in terms of dictatorships. I'm not sure if there are any studies regarding libertarian values in men vs women but the topic seems interesting.

[Wells]

Yes in terms of statism, no in terms of dictatorships. I'm not sure if there are any studies regarding libertarian values in men vs women but the topic seems interesting.

Gonna laugh this off until there's supporting evidence for it, since there was substantially less freedom in the US prior to 1920.

[PC2]

Gonna laugh this off until there's supporting evidence for it, since there was substantially less freedom in the US prior to 1920.

Okay but I'm not claiming there has been research done on it or anything, just that I think many of his points are correct.

[Pangean]

Gawker might be a tabloid rag, but either way, billionaires using the civil court system as a proxy war against organizations they don't like, particularly press outlets, is not something to be pleased about.

If you file suit after suit after suit at the same people you'll get told to fuck off. But if you're rich you can just get a string of other people to do it instead.

For every action there will be a reaction. And this will be no different. This can't be stopped but the secrecy behind it can be. And if it's nonsense suits being launched there are laws that take care of those including forcing those who launch the suits to pay court and defendant costs.

And as this gets appealed up to the Supreme Court there is also a risk of overturning and/or reducing the payout. The higher courts tend to have a much more robust view of freedom of speech than locally elected judges.

[Wells]

For every action there will be a reaction. And this will be no different. This can't be stopped but the secrecy behind it can be. And if it's nonsense suits being launched there are laws that take care of those including forcing those who launch the suits to pay court and defendant costs.

None of which handle abusive third party funders. Anti-SLAPP doesn't have a place here.

[Tragedia]

Fuck Peter Thiel for this shit. 1. Dangerous for billionaires to wage shadow wars on publications. 2. Making Gawker look sympathetic.

[Spiffums]

Honestly seems like an abuse of the system, almost like the court case equivalent of hiring a hitman (but not Bret "The Hitman" Hart to make a wrestling reference xD)

Not really people donate to defense funds all the time.

[Pangean]

None of which handle abusive third party funders. Anti-SLAPP doesn't have a place here.

If it's a nuisance suit it won't matter if it is funded by third party. Defendant costs will have to be paid. And if I can show multiple frivolous lawsuits funded by a single person/entity against a single entity I not so sure that Anti-Slapp wouldn't have a place here.

[Wells]

If it's a nuisance suit it won't matter if it is funded by third party. Defendant costs will have to be paid. And if I can show multiple frivolous lawsuits funded by a single person/entity against a single entity I not so sure that Anti-Slapp wouldn't have a place here.

Except it doesn't need to be frivolous for this to be a problem. For instance with the Hogan suit, we saw the suit changed to a riskier one that wouldn't be protected by insurance in the event of a loss for Gawker as part of Thiel's funding. That's what turns this from good faith funding like we see all the time into a shitty vendetta that we have no reason to allow.

Curious what part of Anti-SLAPP laws you think will go after a third party.