Peter Thiel vs Gawker

[Berkut]

Gawker says that if they can get a hold of YOUR sex tape, it is fair game for them to publish it because it is "newsworthy".

But that isn't this case.  Hogan was a celebrity, the sex tape was news before it was published by gawker and Hogan himself went on radio shows to boast about it.  That's a little different from just publishing some random citizen's tape.

I'll grant that it is a *little* different - but the standard that seems to be promoted here is that basically anything is newsworthy as long as gawker says so, and it is pretty clear from their actions that they don't give two shits about whether something is actually newsworthy, they just want clicks and money. I don't think they sit around and have some sober analysis, and came down on the side of "newsworthy" to share a video of Hogan banging some chick. I think they had it, thought "Hey, this will make us some money!" and posted away thinking they could get away with it.

So I am fine with a jury of my peers deciding that they crossed the line and nailing them. I am fine with them finding that they didn't , but the process at least puts the fear of it into them.

I am not fine with the idea that even the threat of being sued should be removed, so that the gawkers of the world don't have to worry about what is or is not newsworthy - because I don't believe they actually care at all, except to the extent that they might get in trouble of some kind.

That fear of legal action is a shitty, blunt tool. But it is certainly the only thing constraining those kinds of actors.

[viper37]

I think they had it, thought "Hey, this will make us some money!" and posted away thinking they could get away with it.

Well, it was published online before Gawker.  It's not like they went and stole the tape.

That fear of legal action is a shitty, blunt tool. But it is certainly the only thing constraining those kinds of actors.

If you risk getting sued anytime you publish something, newsworthy or not, about a public figure, it's bad for democracy.
If the New York Times risk getting sued for publishing a story about Donald Trump's use of fiscal paradise, and they know that if they do so, every time they publish a news about some political or public figure they are going to get sued, they are likely to stop publishing anything.

Focusing on Gawker and defending the process because they are apparently assholes is misleading, I think.  The debate is much larger than Gawker vs Hogan.

[Berkut]

I think you are only looking at one side of the coin.

If you *don't* risk getting sued when publish private information about individuals, ever, then that is bad for personal privacy rights.

As in all things, there must be a balance. No rights are absolute, even if the media wants *their* rights to be absolute under the fig leaf of "protecting democracy", but under the reality of "we want to make a buck".

[Legbiter]

Focusing on Gawker and defending the process because they are apparently assholes is misleading, I think.  The debate is much larger than Gawker vs Hogan.

I agree. It's about porno voyeurism using free speech as a figleaf to cause asymmetric destruction to defenceless innocents for clicks and profits while at the same time spouting hypocritical nonsense.

Somebody should put up a cash bounty for clips of Nick Denton going to the bathroom or having sex. Force that degenerate to eat his own cooking. 

[viper37]

If you *don't* risk getting sued when publish private information about individuals, ever, then that is bad for personal privacy rights.

Given the large settlements of US civil court cases, I think the system where only the interested party can sue is working appropriately.  If you have a legitimate case, even against the very powerful, a lawyer will take your case and collect his fees on the settlement.

So that risk of *never* getting sued is pretty minimal, near non-existent.  If you go beyond the limits previously established, you will get sanctionned in court.

But in the case currently funded by this billionaire, I don't see anything else than libel against an individual, and it should be up to them to sue if they feel victimized.  In fact, it is a deliberate attempt at forcing Gawker to incur legal costs on dubious lawsuits because he himself did not have an even remotely legitimate case to sue.

As in all things, there must be a balance. No rights are absolute, even if the media wants *their* rights to be absolute under the fig leaf of "protecting democracy", but under the reality of "we want to make a buck".

I agree, but I don't see how it is relevant here.  No one is denying Hulk Hogan's right to sue if he feels victimized.  But Peter Thiel is not attacked by Gawker here, in fact, he is not attacked in any of the lawsuits he is financing against Gawker, even when they simply report other newsmedia's information.

If revealing the truth about a public figure lands you in trouble because he can use his wealth to sue you into oblivion for any kind of cases not related to him, often of dubious legal value since no lawyer seems to want to them without an upfront payment, than there is a threat to democracy and it goes way beyond Gawker.

If a private individual mistreated by Gawker can not sue because of his relatively unknown status, than it is another problem entirely and it must be adressed seperately.

[viper37]

I agree. It's about porno voyeurism using free speech as a figleaf to cause asymmetric destruction to defenceless innocents for clicks and profits while at the same time spouting hypocritical nonsense.

Who's denying Hogan's right to sue?  Why couldn't he sue on his own?  Why did he need Thiel's money to sue for him?

Could it be that the case was not so clear cut in the first place?

Maybe Gawker are real scumbags.  I don't know and I don't even want to read the site to discover by myself, I'll trust you on this.

But I read Joan's statements of the facts, and it does not seem that Mr Hogan is a sweet innocent victim of a terrible predator site in this case.  And if I read about the other people's case, funded by Thiel, it does not seem like it was totally devoid of public interest.  Not the kind of things I'd be bothered to read, but no worst than what any other publication will occasionnaly do in the US.

[The Minsky Moment]

Somebody should put up a cash bounty for clips of Nick Denton going to the bathroom or having sex. Force that degenerate to eat his own cooking.

Instead someone put up a cash bounty for anything that could take down his business.  So a variant on your wish came true.

[Berkut]

I agree. It's about porno voyeurism using free speech as a figleaf to cause asymmetric destruction to defenceless innocents for clicks and profits while at the same time spouting hypocritical nonsense.

Who's denying Hogan's right to sue?  Why couldn't he sue on his own?  Why did he need Thiel's money to sue for him?

I think the conversation has moved passed Thiel - just about everyone agrees that his involvement is problematic. I think that is the case anyway.

This is more about the idea that the case has a freedom of the press angle to it - that regardless of the funding for the lawsuit, should Hogan be allowed to sue for something like this - let's pretend for the moment that he funded the suit himself.

I am arguing against the idea that I think is being put forth that his case has no basis and should not even be allowed to be brought, because the media should not have to fear that someone they piss off can sue them into oblivion.

[Barrister]

I agree. It's about porno voyeurism using free speech as a figleaf to cause asymmetric destruction to defenceless innocents for clicks and profits while at the same time spouting hypocritical nonsense.

Who's denying Hogan's right to sue?  Why couldn't he sue on his own?  Why did he need Thiel's money to sue for him?

I think the conversation has moved passed Thiel - just about everyone agrees that his involvement is problematic. I think that is the case anyway.

This is more about the idea that the case has a freedom of the press angle to it - that regardless of the funding for the lawsuit, should Hogan be allowed to sue for something like this - let's pretend for the moment that he funded the suit himself.

I am arguing against the idea that I think is being put forth that his case has no basis and should not even be allowed to be brought, because the media should not have to fear that someone they piss off can sue them into oblivion.

Let me put forward an alternative idea.

What if the problem isn't so much media fearing lawsuits.  They should have a healthy fear of lawsuits.  It's what prevents them from publishing defaming material.

Instead, perhaps the problem is the outrageous damage awards that get handed out in the US?  There's no way in Canada someone would win a nine-figure award for damage to reputation.

The problem isn't that someone can sue gawker.  The problem is that a single lawsuit has the ability to wipe out the entire company because of the enormity of the damages awarded.

[alfred russel]

This is more about the idea that the case has a freedom of the press angle to it - that regardless of the funding for the lawsuit, should Hogan be allowed to sue for something like this - let's pretend for the moment that he funded the suit himself.

I am arguing against the idea that I think is being put forth that his case has no basis and should not even be allowed to be brought, because the media should not have to fear that someone they piss off can sue them into oblivion.

Imagine you owned CNN. You probably have hundreds of reporters directly or indirectly in your network, multiple TV stations, and a large website. How can you ensure that somebody doesn't put out a story that is as sketchy as the Hulk Hogan tape? (I recognize that CNN is unlikely to release a sex tape, but there are other types of stories that can result in legal liability) Heck, you could even end up with a disgruntled employee working off a grudge slipping in a defamatory story.

Even CNN probably has a limited tolerance for $140m payouts with $20m in legal fees. It isn't crazy for ownership to pull their reporters back from areas that expose the company to those risks.

As I see it, the problem isn't so much that Hogan sued, or that someone paid for his legal fees, or that Gawker is having to pay money. The problem is that the award is grossly disproportionate to what happened in the case.

[alfred russel]

Beaten to the punch by BB.

[garbon]

Instead, perhaps the problem is the outrageous damage awards that get handed out in the US?  There's no way in Canada someone would win a nine-figure award for damage to reputation.

The problem isn't that someone can sue gawker.  The problem is that a single lawsuit has the ability to wipe out the entire company because of the enormity of the damages awarded.

But then that's a discussion barely connected to any of this. That's just a discussion about our jury award system.

[grumbler]

Flynt claimed it raised freedom of the press issues, but that doesn't make it so.

I don't think there was any freedom of the press issue in either case, really. The Flynt case was about libel, and whether or not parody was a valid exception to the libel laws - prior to Flynt is was kind of sort of assumed that it was, after Flynt it was definitely clear that it was such an exception.

The Flynt case was even more specialized/narrow than that.  The jury decision that a caricature of a public person could not be defamation, because it clearly wasn't trying to assert the truth of its allegations.  The controversy in the case turned on whether Falwell could claim damages for emotional distress for an otherwise "legal" caricature.  Eventually, the USSC had to rule on that issue.  It didn't rule on "freedom of the press" per se.

[grumbler]

Instead, perhaps the problem is the outrageous damage awards that get handed out in the US?  There's no way in Canada someone would win a nine-figure award for damage to reputation.

The problem isn't that someone can sue gawker.  The problem is that a single lawsuit has the ability to wipe out the entire company because of the enormity of the damages awarded.

But then that's a discussion barely connected to any of this. That's just a discussion about our jury award system.

Yep.  I made that point in the fourth post on the topic, so we have come full circle. 

[Jacob]

But then that's a discussion barely connected to any of this. That's just a discussion about our jury award system.

The novel part of this situation is that someone - someone rich - is wielding the jury award system as a weapon to destroy a business they have taken a disliking to, and that they are close to success and that they're openly admitting to it. The other aspect involved is ease with which many people can agree that Gawker is terrible and ought to be destroyed.