Gawker Sued into Bankruptcy
Gawker media officially filed for bankruptcy this week following its loss of a $140 million lawsuit brought by Hulk Hogan, bankrolled by PayPal founder Peter Thiel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-bil...
A 2007 article published by Gawker’s Valleywag blog was headlined, “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.” That and a series of articles about his friends and others that he said “ruined people’s lives for no reason” drove Mr. Thiel to mount a clandestine war against Gawker. He funded a team of lawyers to find and help “victims” of the company’s coverage mount cases against Gawker.
But the revelation this week that Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others has raised a series of new questions about the First Amendment as well as about the role of big money in the court system — specifically the emerging field of litigation finance, in which third parties like hedge funds and investment firms pay for other people’s lawsuits.
http://www.wired.com/2016/06/gawkers-bankruptcy-free-press-dies-one-vc-t...
The piece didn’t “out” Thiel, as so many have written; Owen Thomas, the writer of the piece and now the business editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, says Thiel was open about his sexuality with friends and colleagues. The point of the piece, rather, was to call out the hypocrisy of other venture capitalists, who supposedly prize non-conformity but would rather keep talk of sexual difference hush-hush. It’s a perfect crystallization of Gawker’s editorial posture.
Meanwhile, Gawker, which has received a $22 million lifeline and intends to keep publishing until it can sell, is receiving accolades for a recent exposee on Donald Trump's hair.
http://gawker.com/now-peter-thiels-lawyer-wants-to-silence-reporting-on-...
It's certainly all a bit strange -- and that says a lot when a case involves someone named "Bubba the Love Sponge" -- but the narrative could have been a lot different if Thiel had bankrolled the suit openly and transparently.
Yeah, and the issue for me isn;t that media should have immunity to publish libel, but as the article says, the danger of this being in the hands of people with virtually unlimited resources.
Consider if it was not an outing, but a whistleblower.
I'm looking at it from the other side. Consider if if was not a rich millionaire with an axe to grind, but supportive parents, or a community group, or a GoFundMe page.
I'll agree it's still a bit odd. But it's also still the rich and famous suing the rich and famous for more munnee.
Peter Theil's war on the first amendment
An outing is NOT libel. Truth is an absolute defense to a libel charge. If it's true it's not libel, no matter what else the circumstances. Thiel would have a hard time proving that being outed "ruined his life" regardless. I am not a fan of the practice of outing people against their will but in no circumstances should it be illegal.
Furthermore even a false outing shouldn't be considered libel because libel has to be defamatory, and in the 21st century, I don't think being accused of being gay can be considered damaging to one's reputation, at least not in the first world.
Peter Thiel is an ass, as everybody knew already. I would say it's ironic that a so-called libertarian is a fan of using the courts to silence people who talk about him, except, it's not.
Not disagreeing or anything, but that's not really material. The case wasn't about him or his outing. And he's allowed to hate Gawker for any reason he wants, isn't he?
And he didn;'t go after them for outing; that was what pissed him off. He bankrolled Hulk Hogan over his sex tape.
And yes it sometimes happens to people who don't have the resources to sue, but their interests aren't being served by the rich and powerful suing media into the ground.
Whether there should be regulators to protect from that (and how they would go about codifying it) is kind of a separate issue.
For that matter, whether there should be some protections for media in cases like this is another issue.
And here I thought Larry Flynt went to the boards to settle all this nonsense.
I think that, given that Gawker engaged with Thiel of their own free will, they deserved what they got.
He's obviously smarter and more motivated than them (not difficult, they're journalists).
It's not as if, given their line of business, they did not know the risks.
Really? Given that they dared to piss off a rich man?
And if Flynt hadn't had deep enough pockets and enough will to take it all the way to the Supreme Court then Jerry Falwell would have been the "obviously smarter" one?
And had he not been able to bankroll that case would everyone since who has benefitted from that ruling regarding fair comment about public figures have gotten what they deserve?
For that matter, you might want to consider that we get to sit around here yapping and playing armchair experts because of the good graces and hospitality of unmotivated journalists who aren't as smart as other people..
Smarter? Don't you mean richer? Ridiculous post.
I actually meant smarter, Josh. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
That makes him smarter how?
I can see how it makes him more of a hypocrite. From your wikipedia article:
I guess he is all for free speech except when people use it about him.
@ Smith:
I think you are melding free speech and torts, and also melding together Gawker's treatment of Thiel and of Bollea. You can do that if you want, but I think it blurs the issues.
Hate speech is not the same thing as "invasion of privacy, infringement of personality rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
And yes, if you read about what Thiel has achieved, he's not a dummy.
Actually the only person who said anything about people being less intelligent is you.
And the notion that a fatter wallet makes him smarter? As was said above, it is ridiculous.
As for Thiel's values:
http://stanfordreview.org/article/a-brief-and-non-exhaustive-history-of-...
Square that with him going on a vendetta because a publisher pointed out an uncomfortable truth. And regardless of where one stands on outing and targetting someone because of identity (even though this was not an outing) there is also the greater question of proportionality, and the power of the rich to influence the courts and media. And doing this as a former publisher.
Here's the original article.
http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people
@ Smith:
I can break it down further if you want me to.
1) I did not say that being richer makes you smarter (there are many many counterexamples). I included the biographical link to point to achievements, not bank accounts.
2) Is Gawker's gossip-column business model based on embarrassing people? I think so: you may differ.
3) Was Gawker's treatment of Bollea actionable? So far the courts seem to think so, although there could be appeals, and Bollea might ultimately lose.
4) Was Gawker's treatment of Thiel actionable? Likely not, but it obviously led to him holding a grudge. He might not have wanted the whole world to know he was gay.
5) Did this lead to a situation in which Thiel had reason to make common cause with Bollea? Yes.
You don't need to break anything down. I see pretty clearly where you are coming from.
As for a "business model based on embarrassing people" do you think other media don't get sued?
And so what? Frank Magazine had a similar model, and they still managed to break a number of legitimate stories.
And not to dwell too much on Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell but it is often edgier publications which test the law that all media benefit from.
Question is, should media have to have wealthy patrons in order to do business, or risk being shut down by any rich guy (or corporation) who holds a grudge?
Gawker went out of their way to NOT have wealthy investors in order to avoid any such conflict of interest. I'd say any small independent media, regardless of their mandate, should be concerned by this.
@ Smith:
I think we might want to agree to disagree.
Yes, I expect so.
The story linked to in the opening post presents some of the conflicting sides here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/technology/gossip-in-silicon-valley-an...
As long as we're going to make sure to note the difference between being "rich" and being "smart", we might also want to rationally consider whether Bollea won because Thiel bought him some lawyers, or because Gawker really did, in fact, invade his privacy.
Sure.
(though the ruling is being appealed)
And there are certainly things that some of Gawker's websites did which crossed lines.
But given that Theil's ulterior motive was not to seek damages but to break them, and there was no chance of any settlement, and that the deal was kept secret, this could also be seen as an abuse of the legal process.
http://theconversation.com/was-peter-thiels-funding-of-the-gawker-case-a...
And again, there is the matter of proportionality. Ezra Levant lost $80,000 in a suit two years ago. Certainly Gawker is bigger, and it is the U.S., but should awards be so high that they force the breakup of a media organization?
And should media have to have 160 lawyers on board, as HBO did for its documentary Going Clear, to shield themselves against someone with a grudge. And despite the presumed validity of Hogan's case, the real story is a wealthy and powerful community going after a media organization which would not bow to their will. A grudge so strong that Thiel stooped to calling them "terrorists" in a trade paper.
And my mention of the threat over trump was sort of a joke, but really, should slap suits be allowed as interference in coverage of a presidential campaign?
With a threatening letter which the firm claims cannot be published because it is under copyright?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/media/gawker-article-on-trump...
http://www.cjr.org/analysis/shadowy_war.php?utm_content=bufferc2bc9&utm_...
If we say, for the sake of argument at least, that Gawker really did violate Bollea's rights then I'm having a bit of trouble seeing how this is a good example of abuse of justice. If this were some sort of vexatious suit, or a SLAPP suit, and Bollea won because of munnee, I could see it, but if he won because he was right then who helped him financially, and why they wanted to do so, doesn't seem all that relevant to me.
If I wanted to sue McDonalds for cruelty to animals, and PETA and a GoFundMe campaign financed some lawyers, who would say that was an abuse of justice because clearly PETA and those strangers want to watch McDonalds burn?
That I can agree with. I'm having trouble making sense of that number as well. But unless Thiel also paid for a judge, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with anything -- other than the state of tort law in the U.S.
As that article in the Columbia Journalism Review states, the fact that Thiel's funding was kept secret makes this questionable.
And that if there is a third party with his own motive, any question of settlement is off the table. That might not have been the case if Hogan was filing this suit on his own.
We know that organizations like Scientology have a reputation for suing their opponents into submission. All the more reason that information should be declared up front.
And that Thiel seems to be taking his vendetta to the point where it is interfering with coverage of the federal election.
It might seem like a frivilous issue but , we also had a story here in Canada about Stephen Harper's hairstyling, remember?
I would agree that the optics of it are a bit hinky -- that's the first thing I said in this thread. But I don't think it makes it questionable in any legal sense. It just could have looked so much more principled if he'd been transparent.
Perhaps. But nobody has any legal right to a settlement, any more than in the criminal justice system they have a right to a plea bargain.
This Thiel fellow seems all but omnipotent. But is this really his fault?
No need to spell out the technical points. I am aware of them, and that he has so far won.
And if you want to give him a pass and full benefit of the doubt you are quite free to do so, and I am not trying to stop you.There are a lot of people who agree, I am sure.
But I don't need to repeat where I see a real danger here, including for people who have not committed an invasion of privacy, or libel, but for whom the prospect of being hauled in the door of a court would mean ruin.
As for this case, the judge has ordered Hogan's lawyers to stand down on threats of further action, and Gawker is shielded from a number of other pending suits while under chapter ll:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gawker-hulk-hogan-agree-to-complete-standsti...
So I suppose it is good there are technical requirements to keep that omnipotent wrath in check.
I never said it was all his fault (thought I clarified that upthread). But I don't buy his being ticked off about media pointing out his hypocrisy giving him carte blanche, or that the fact he is acting within the law means he is justified in using his power to attack.
That goes double when this starts interfering in coverage of political candidates
OK. Let's suppose that all that Gawker did was publish a picture of Bollea with the comment "Doesn't the Hulkster look ridiculous in these silly bandanas??" that he'd have been awarded $140M because Thiel lawyered him up?
I'll put it another way. If you believe that Gawker actually was guilty, what makes any of this a useful object lesson in what will happen to the innocent?
Did you read the cjr piece, Magoo? For that matter, did you read the sentence you just quoted above your question?
And whether Gawker is guilty or not is irrelevant.
I hadn't read the cjr piece. I skimmed it just now, skipping over the parts that were about other totally different cases, but I really didn't expect it to be a game changer (or mind changer).
I certainly read the part that I quoted. And I get that the rich and powerful could certainly use their money or their clout to drag some innocent schlub like you or me into court with the hope of bleeding us dry before we could even make our case. As it often is when you and I argue, I think we're probably in slightly more agreement than disagreement, and I totally get that.
But:
1. Gawker isn't some schlub like you or me
2. I really can't see where Gawker was innocent either
So while we can all certainly oppose "SLAPP" suits, intended to discourage legitimate criticism of corporations or wealthy individuals, I'm still a bit unclear as to how a large media outlet publishing video of an individual having sex qualifies as some sort of "investigative journalism" that we should be worried on behalf of.
Perhaps next we'll all come to the defense of paparrazzi who use a 7,000 mm lens to keep the world informed of some starlet's boobs on a private island. God forbid that moneyed interests buy off the justice system and make that difficult for those "journalists". The world has a right to know!
Anyhoo, lemme just suggest again: this would be a TOTALLY different story if there were any way in which Gawker was innocent in this. Until someone can demonstrate that Gawker was acting in the public interest, and/or that Thiel somehow "bought" the outcome, I don't really care. What you're concerned about surely exists, but this is simply not an example of it.
Really?
Were they bankrupted by the onerous cost of having to finance a defense? Or by the judgement, once they were found guilty?
If it really doesn't matter then they may as well have also suggested that he's a convicted child molester. Why not, if the important part is "some rich guy"?
Or, to put it another way, if someone guilty is found guilty, how is that a travesty of justice???