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

[PC2]

Tech bro billionaire Peter Thiel should definitely be Trumps vice-president. And he is gay so that would help counter Hillary being a woman.

[Pangean]

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.

I wonder what the bar association thinks of counseling for a riskier option like that.

[Wells]

I wonder what the bar association thinks of counseling for a riskier option like that.

We'll see. I mean I doubt anything will come of it either way, but this isn't won't just go away I think.

[Pangean]

We'll see. I mean I doubt anything will come of it either way, but this isn't won't just go away I think.

Well the lawyers job is to do whats right for the person they represent, not for the third party paying for it. I am sure someone will be looking into this. It won't go away right away but it will be dealt with.

[hrugner]

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.

Gawker is standing behind the statement that they did not out Hogan for being racist. Infact, Hogan has been trying to pin that on them since some other tabloid released it following Gawker threatening to do so in retaliation against his pressing the court case.

[SodiumChloride]

As much as I really really really really hate Gawker, I can't get behind this.

For some context: http://qz.com/692312/billionaire-pet...to-be-illegal/

This shit used to be illegal, and for good reason.

How is this different from a wealthy lawyer deciding to taking a case for free (100% free, no part of the compensation, nothing) because he/she thinks it's for a good cause and deciding to inflict maximum damage like the Hulk's lawyers are now.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Nope. Gawker isn't being sued for outing Hogan as racist. They are being sued for posting his sex tape - that was filmed without his consent.

The reason they are as in deep of a shit as they are in now is in no small part is due to their own arrogance. In case no one remembers, the judge told them to take down the video ... they refuse ... they intentionally defied a court order ... of course the judge which handled Hogan's case was not amused.

[NoiseTank13]

hey guys, I'll let you in on a 3-step procedure on how to defend yourselves from the billionaire boogieman coming down on the innocent independant news outlet;

1. Don't post revenge porn (You all do realize that Hogan was the secondary target, the primary being the woman whose husband recorded that video and sold to Gawker to post online because of Hogan's celebrity, right?)
2. Don't defy a court order to take it down. (Which if they did, they wouldn't be in the mess they are in today.)
3. Do take the inevitable lawsuit followup seriously. (Hurr durr yeah we'd publish 6 year old child sex tapes haha wait why are you so mad it's just a joke your honor)


There is absolutely zero, no chilling effects to this whatsoever. You merely have to think to yourselves in the editing room 'is what we are posting revenge porn?' and if the answer is remotely "maybe?" then don't fucking put it on the internet. That's it.

All you literally have to do is not be fucking Gawker and you will be fine.

Rich businessmen who spend their money and time trying to get independent news outlets shut down have a pretty long track record of losing spectacularly with few exceptions. Stop pissing and moaning because the planets aligned in allowing one homosexual conservative billionaire businessman putting his money backing a retired professional wrestlers lawsuit against a news organization so reprehensible it aided blackmail of gay people because they didn't align with their politics as well as, I cannot reiterate this enough, posting 'revenge pornography' on it's website.

The Podunk Times is still free to post "Our Governor is a Cunt" and nothing will come of it.

And for the record I would have loved it of George Soros' bankrolled Shirley Sherrod's lawsuit against Brietbart for that horrific video.

[Ivanstone]

Gawker is standing behind the statement that they did not out Hogan for being racist. Infact, Hogan has been trying to pin that on them since some other tabloid released it following Gawker threatening to do so in retaliation against his pressing the court case.

The lawsuit is not about the sex tape. Its about Hogan trying to hide his racism. Gawker's intent is not relevant.

Of course, we now know that its about a sniveling manchild who feels he can support whatever political cause he wants and not get criticized in the media for it.

If Hogan's feelings about the sex tape were hurt why did AJ Delaurio get wrecked by the suit and Bubba Clem who leaked the tape get a slap on the wrist? Because its not about Hogan's right to privacy, its about a butthurt tech billionaire throwing a tantrum.

[paralleluniverse]

2 points.

1. Personally butthurt billionaire and crank libertarian on a crusade to destroy press freedom.

2. Just as if you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you despise, you don't believe in it at all, the Hogan v Gawker case is yet another example exposing the fact that Gamergate's concern for free speech and press freedom is purely phony and hypocritical.

[SodiumChloride]

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.

Should Hogan not be able to sue to the full extend that the law allows him because he might not be able to pay his lawyers?

[enragedgorilla]

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)

So it is bad to have a benefactor backing you up $$$ wise?
Someone who believes you are being wronged and are willing to back you up...sounds like a good person to have ...or at least a gofundme page...without the page...or more than one backer.
I do not see this as bad at all, trash gossip rags/mags etc need to be kept in check, freedom of press, doesn't mean free to print lies...or video tapes like this.
Since they "outed" him....this is justice I would say...he is paying for it ....so, I see no issue.
The case still has to have merit,still has a jury,still has a judge...outcome isn't 100% known.

[PC2]

2 points.

1. Personally butthurt billionaire and crank libertarian on a crusade to destroy press freedom.

2. Just as if you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you despises, you don't believe in it at all, the Hogan v Gawker case is yet another example exposing the fact that Gamergate's concern for free speech and press freedom is purely phony and hypocritical.

Or he is doing this to get people like you to understand the great value of free expression. That way you won't do it to others. As long as you are pro-more speech, that is good.

[Wells]

Should Hogan not be able to sue to the full extend that the law allows him because he might not be able to pay his lawyers?

I've already addressed good faith third party funding, thanks.

[SodiumChloride]

2 points.

1. Personally butthurt billionaire and crank libertarian on a crusade to destroy press freedom.

2. Just as if you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you despise, you don't believe in it at all, the Hogan v Gawker case is yet another example exposing the fact that Gamergate's concern for free speech and press freedom is purely phony and hypocritical.

Not sure what you are on about.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom to slander nor freedom to invade someone's privacy.

Tort laws exist for a reason.

[PC2]

Not sure what you are on about.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom to slander nor freedom to invade someone's privacy.

Tort laws exist for a reason.

Yeah but we have the courts for that, the public should stay out of it and not play judge and punisher.

[SodiumChloride]

I've already addressed good faith third party funding, thanks.

What makes you think this isn't in good faith?

Thiel has been burned by these cocksuckers - when he decides to come out of the closet is his business. Seeing a fellow man getting run over by them, he decided to give a hand.

Problem?

[PC2]

What makes you think this isn't in good faith?

Thiel has been burned by these cocksuckers - when he decides to come out of the closet is his business. Seeing a fellow man getting run over by them, he decided to give a hand.

Problem?

No problem, some of the authoritarians in this thread get pissed off when they don't get to prosecute in the court of public opinion.

[Wells]

What makes you think this isn't in good faith?

Already addressed this too. Its only a three page thread, seriously.

[NoiseTank13]

Or he is doing this to get people like you to understand the great value of free expression. That way you won't do it to others. As long as you are pro-more speech, that is good.

don't engage parreleluniverse

dude thinks gamergate was behind waco, texas.

[Ivanstone]

What makes you think this isn't in good faith?

Thiel has been burned by these cocksuckers - when he decides to come out of the closet is his business. Seeing a fellow man getting run over by them, he decided to give a hand.

Problem?

If he got burned by Gawker for outing him why didn't he sue when they did it?

More importantly shouldn't we know more about the people who throw around immense sums of money in politics and their motivations for doing so?

Especially people who have potential access to your privacy? He seems to have made a buttload of money from Facebook peddling your secrets to the highest bidder.

Finally, if this is about Hogan's loss of privacy why is Bubba Clem not on the hook for 140 million? Him being the actual guilty party.