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

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Damn, this Thiel guy just toss a cheque to Hulk's lawyers, and told them to not worry about being able to claim their fees, he can settle that but he wants them to nail Gawker's balls to the wall.

Payback is a bitch. LOL

Good for him.

Gawker is trash

- - - Updated - - -

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 - - -



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.

So what is your point? They are using the legal system in legal accordance to the law.

Are any of these lawsuits frivilous? Not that I have read about concerning Peter Thiel's backing.

This is about continued behavior by Gawker who have systematically abused members of the American public in an ongoing and public way.

What Peter Thiel is doing is similar to what ACLU does.

[Hooked]

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)

I think lawyers are an abuse to the system, Hillary Clinton defended a guy who raped a little 12 yr old girl, and she knew he was guilty, she won the case.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

I think lawyers are an abuse to the system, Hillary Clinton defended a guy who raped a little 12 yr old girl, and she knew he was guilty, she won the case.

The movie "Devil's Advocate" was actually based on Hillary Clinton, though she didn't blow her brains out at the end.

[Hooked]

The movie "Devil's Advocate" was actually based on Hillary Clinton, though she didn't blow her brains out at the end.

It could be based on trump, he does fit the mold more closely. I agree with the Donald devil though and hope he unleashes hell on the opposite party.

[paralleluniverse]

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.

There's no slander here. The Hogan sex tape is real. State-legislated privacy rights do not trump the constitutional freedom of the press, especially for public figures. If you think they do, you should go rail at the press' treatment of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

The core issues here are whether some billionaire with a personal vendetta should have the power to chip away at the freedom of the press, to destroy a news organization that has made him personally butthurt by perpetually bankrolling lawsuits, the chilling effect this has on reporting about people in power, and the right-wing phonies who put their hate of Gawker ahead of this constitutional freedom.

[SodiumChloride]

There's no slander here. The Hogan sex tape is real. State-legislated privacy rights do not trump the constitutional freedom of the press, especially for public figures. If you think they do, you should go rail at the press' treatment of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

The core issues here is whether some billionaire with a personal vendetta should have the power to chip away at the freedom of the press, to destroy a news organization that has made him butthurt by perpetually bankrolling lawsuits, the chilling effect this has on reporting about people in power, and the right-wing phonies who put their hate of Gawker ahead of this constitutional freedom.

I find it funny that you choose "slander" when I also mentioned "invasion of privacy".

Talk about strawmaning.

[paralleluniverse]

What Peter Thiel is doing is similar to what ACLU does.

This is the most galling and stupidest sentence in this whole thread.

The ACLU defends freedom and protects the Constitution, Thiel is attempting to destroy both.

[apples]

I think lawyers are an abuse to the system, Hillary Clinton defended a guy who raped a little 12 yr old girl, and she knew he was guilty, she won the case.

id like to see you say that when youre forced to go to bat for the state to keep a murderer whos been in jail for the last 20 years in jail, as hes now found out his rights had been violated, seeing that hes spent the last 20 years in a law journal.

gl in court, joe average

[Strangebrew]

>Gawker
>news

Pick one.

http://archive.is/eE4iz
This is Gawker, this isn't news, this is an attack piece that violate the privacy of civilians.
They have also doxxed cops along with their families, because PC.


The amount of attack pieces and slandering that have come from Gawker and it's outlets is endless.
They are not fucking news, good fucking riddance.
I'm just worried what trash the shitstains working for gawker will come up with next after it's dead.

[paralleluniverse]

I find it funny that you choose "slander" when I also mentioned "invasion of privacy".

Talk about strawmaning.

You mention both slander and privacy. I addressed both slander and privacy in by reply. Nice dodge.

- - - Updated - - -

If what you said were true then journalists would be allowed to invade private property at will if the owner is a public figure. Seeing as they can't then maybe you should rethink some of this shit.

This is a completely idiotic non-sequitur. It makes no sense. Private property is protected by property rights, privacy isn't.

[SodiumChloride]

You mention both slander and privacy. I addressed both slander and privacy in by reply. Nice dodge.

Sorry you didn't address shit.

Freedom of the press != freedom to post someone's sex tape.

You can talk about someone's affair. Sex tape is a no-no though.

If Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky sex tape got leaked (assuming there is one) you can bet it will be taken down.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a completely idiotic non-sequitur. It makes no sense. Private property is protected by property rights, privacy isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States#Public_disclosure

[paralleluniverse]

I think lawyers are an abuse to the system, Hillary Clinton defended a guy who raped a little 12 yr old girl, and she knew he was guilty, she won the case.

How on Earth is this related to the topic? So what if Hillary Clinton defended a rapist? Lawyers defend criminals, that's how it works. Everyone charged with a crime has a right to an attorney. Someone has to defend them. And that's a good thing, it's a critical cornerstone of constitutional and human rights.

[apples]

Whatever. You're still 100% incorrect. Just because someone is a public figure does NOT mean they lose all rights to privacy.

all? no

but considering that the general publics idea of right to privacy and the states right to privacy are two very, very different things

they lose most of it.

[Deleted]

There's no slander here. The Hogan sex tape is real. State-legislated privacy rights do not trump the constitutional freedom of the press, especially for public figures. If you think they do, you should go rail at the press' treatment of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

Except, the while the public might be interested in the sex tape, it is not in the public interest.
Whereas it would be for BC and ML.

The core issues here are whether some billionaire with a personal vendetta should have the power to chip away at the freedom of the press,

The core issues here are whether some billionaire with a personal vendetta should have the power to chip away at the - anything? -
Please elucidate me as to the difference of this and anyone or any organisation that funds a legal defence or suit of a third party.

to destroy a news organization that has made him personally butthurt by perpetually bankrolling lawsuits, the chilling effect this has on reporting about people in power, and the right-wing phonies who put their hate of Gawker ahead of this constitutional freedom.

You know what i usually get here?
Free speech only means you are allowed to speak, its not freedom from consequence.

[paralleluniverse]

Sorry you didn't address shit.

Freedom of the press != freedom to post someone's sex tape.

You can talk about someone's affair. Sex tape is a no-no though.

If Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky sex tape got leaked (assuming there is one) you can bet it will be taken down.

- - - Updated - - -



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privac...lic_disclosure

Everything here has been addressed.

I said that private property is protected by property rights, privacy isn't. This is true, and shows how stupid the implication that if you can publish private details you can invade private property is. It make zero sense.

Didn't say there are no privacy laws. You should learn to read. In fact I said, privacy laws, which are state-legislated, do not trump the constitutional freedom of the press, especially for public figures. Hulk Hogan is a public figure, his sex life is newsworthy. Thus, publishing his sex tape is constitutionally protected and this award will be thrown out by an appeals courts, in which a bench of judges, as opposed to an emotionally manipulated jury, will rule.

There is no law against publishing a hypothetical Bill Clinton sex tape, and no legal distinction between writing about it and showing the sex tape, you just made that up, both are newsworthy and protected, and likewise the same holds for Hogan.

[Chromeshellking]

Whatever. You're still 100% incorrect. Just because someone is a public figure does NOT mean they lose all rights to privacy.

So wait I can secretly place filming equipment in his shower or house? GOD DAMN THAT'S AWESOME BRB!

- - - Updated - - -

Everything here has been addressed.

I said that private property is protected by property rights, privacy isn't. This is true, and shows how stupid the implication the if you can public private details you can invade private property is. It make zero sense.

Didn't say there are no privacy laws. You should learn to read. In fact I said, privacy laws, which are state-legislated, do not trump the constitutional freedom of the press, especially for public figures. Hulk Hogan is a public figure, his sex life is newsworthy. Thus, publishing his sex tape is constitutionally protected and this award will be thrown out by an appeals courts, in which a bench of judges, as opposed to an emotionally manipulated jury, will rule.

There is no law against publishing Bill Clinton's sex tape, and no legal distinction between writing about it and showing the video, you just made that up, both are newsworthy, and likewise the same holds for Hogan.

No one tell him.

[SodiumChloride]

Everything here has been addressed.

I said that private property is protected by property rights, privacy isn't. This is true, and shows how stupid the implication that if you can publish private details you can invade private property is. It make zero sense.

Didn't say there are no privacy laws. You should learn to read. In fact I said, privacy laws, which are state-legislated, do not trump the constitutional freedom of the press, especially for public figures. Hulk Hogan is a public figure, his sex life is newsworthy. Thus, publishing his sex tape is constitutionally protected and this award will be thrown out by an appeals courts, in which a bench of judges, as opposed to an emotionally manipulated jury, will rule.

There is no law against publishing a hypothetical Bill Clinton sex tape, and no legal distinction between writing about it and showing the sex tape, you just made that up, both are newsworthy and protected, and likewise the same holds for Hogan.

The courts disagree to the tune of 140 million in damages.

[Chromeshellking]

Damnit Sodium you weren't supposed to tell him!

[SodiumChloride]

Damnit Sodium you weren't supposed to tell him!

Oops. /10char

[paralleluniverse]

Free speech only means you are allowed to speak, its not freedom from consequence.

This is one of the wrongest and overused anti-speech arguments.

Free speech DOES mean freedom from government and legal consequences. It's merely the consequence of private actors that you are not necessarily free from.