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

[Sarange]

No, they can't. Pickering v Board of Education.

Free speech IS freedom from government consequence.

There is no part of the First Amendment? Yes, there is. "No law abridging the freedom of speech." If government fires you for your speech, government is abridging speech.

- - - Updated - - -

Best piece on the subject:

Its not black and white. Theres exceptions. Obviously.

[hrugner]

He originally was going to sue Bubba Clem for $100 million as well, not sure why the price came down, perhaps because he realized that Gawker were ultimately the guilty party in this whole ordeal.

That's part of it, and in the case work it's mentioned that they settled low and early so Clem could help with the Gawker case. I think they noticed pretty early that Bubba's recordings aren't the same ones Gawker had(audio artifacts, short video length) and that Bubba probably neither profited by the release or caused it.

[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.

At the same time, if it would be illegal for someone to help another in a lawsuit, poor people, or even in the case of Hulk people who can't afford to go through the fight because they don't have the money for it, would have no fucking chance against rich corporations and other rich assholes, and would simply get walked on every single time.

So yeah, it being illegal is about the most moronic thing I've ever heard of. If anything, this has helped to level the playing field.

[sarahtasher]

Once again, I'm amazed that people (who BTW are completely unable to accept that there is a possibility that news sites/people disagree with them without being filthy subhuman deserving to die : I find Breitbart and Fox News stupid, but I don't especially wish for them to ''collapse'', let's alone do, as some people did here to look tough and manly, advocate hiring hitmen to kil their journalists) have such a wonderful view of freedom of speech/press : it's either la-la-land rabid right or ''mah going to take mah gunz and mah going to shoot yah in duh head''


Short of this, it's really pathetic to have the usual ''worldwide conspiracy'' gimmick, but sorely aimed at a site (Kotaku, let's not kid ourself) who said some mean things about a certain alliterative and alleged consumer movement.

[Jotaux]

alliterative and alleged consumer movement.

There was a consumer group concerned with alliteration?

I would be happy to see fox news, breitbart, gawker, and w/e else collapse. Journalism has been dead for a while now.

[sarahtasher]

Alliterative. Like ''Donald Duck'' or ''Dynamic Duo''.

[Strangebrew]

There was a consumer group concerned with alliteration?

I would be happy to see fox news, breitbart, gawker, and w/e else collapse. Journalism has been dead for a while now.

Don't even bother, he just goes on insane ramblings that nobody understands all the time.

[Jotaux]

Alliterative. Like ''Donald Duck'' or ''Dynamic Duo''.

I don't see why anyone would care about alliteration. Like were they spouting "She sell sea shells by the sea shore" is an abomination!

[Deleted]

Not pretending anything sunshine. Asking a question based on the details presented. You don't think Hogan came up with the path on his own do you?

Going back to try to parse your question, No, the lawyers did what HH wanted, because HH was either going to pay for the lawyers himself, or get it paid by thiel.
So there was nothing for the bar to worry about.

[sarahtasher]

I don't see why anyone would care about alliteration. Like were they spouting "She sell sea shells by the sea shore" is an abomination!

I meant an alliterative consumer revolt, like, random example, the Greenlander Gamblers

Hey, thinking about it, that's by far the most informative post on this thread-people will have learn what is alliteration.

[zEmini]

Just an emotionally manipulated jury that disagrees to the tune of 140 million in damages.

An appeals court will throw out this utterly egregious affront to freedom of the press.

Fuck the freedom of the press if it means violating someones privacy. There are very few things I hate more in this world than worthless loser tabloids and the losers that stalk human beings in the name of garbage news.

[Jotaux]

I meant an aliterative consumer revolt, like, random example, the Greenlander Gamblers

Oh so you you don't like gamergate because they had a goal which they accomplished quite handily while pushing women in gaming far beyond what any of their detractors managed?

[RickJamesLich]

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.

There are already restrictions on free speech, you can't yell "bomb" for example on an airplane without getting in trouble for it. Likewise, Gawker is going to have to pay a shit load of money now for their actions.

[Pangean]

Going back to try to parse your question, No, the lawyers did what HH wanted, because HH was either going to pay for the lawyers himself, or get it paid by thiel.
So there was nothing for the bar to worry about.

No the lawyers did what Thiel wanted. If you want to claim that Hogan came up on his own the decisions that were made, that made the case riskier I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. And lawyers directing clients to riskier options for another's vendetta is something for the Bar to worry about.

[Deleted]

No the lawyers did what Thiel wanted. If you want to claim that Hogan came up on his own the decisions that were made, that made the case riskier I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. And lawyers directing clients to riskier options for another's vendetta is something for the Bar to worry about.

Except that wouldn't be the way it would have been stated - it would have been Thiel telling HH, l'l only pay the lawyers if you do X.

[Beazy]

If gawker wants to appeal, dont they have to front half of the judgement in escrow?

Gawker is fucking toast. Good riddance. Now if we can do the same to Fox news and MSNBC, thad` be great.

[hrugner]

If gawker wants to appeal, dont they have to front half of the judgement in escrow?

Gawker is fucking toast. Good riddance. Now if we can do the same to Fox news and MSNBC, thad` be great.

Heh, when those two start getting in the revenge porn/black mail business we'll get right on that. Poorly sourced news, blatant political bias and fuzzy logic aren't actionable. Probably for the best since that would open things up to thick philosophical debate that doesn't belong in law books.

[Naxere]

I like this Peter Thiel guy.

[Pangean]

Except that wouldn't be the way it would have been stated - it would have been Thiel telling HH, l'l only pay the lawyers if you do X.

The Bridge is still for sale.

[Deleted]

The Bridge is still for sale.

Fish, the answer is fish.