Peter Thiel vs Gawker

[viper37]

But isn't the alternative even worse? If you can only finance your own lawsuits, then media outlets like gawker know that the uber rich are untouchable - because they can destroy them - but everyone else is a fair game.

You sue for 2 million$, for attempt at your private life, as an ordinary citizen.
The lawyer will take his fees off the 2 million$ if you have a valid cause.
Therefore, this part of the justice system is accessible to everyone.

Criminal law is another matter, as could be more difficulte cases like racims&discrimination, hence why some special interest group can take the case not only in the name of the defendant but in the name of all people with similar cases.

[LaCroix]

The state provides civil justice as a public good because there is a perceived social value in providing an effective system to receive redress and compensation for civil wrongs.  That rationale is weakened when the system is used not for the purpose of compensation but to destroy.

but the purpose of this suit was to compensate, as stated in the pleadings. (did it request punitive? then punish as well). but the motive/intent behind suits, except maybe a narrow exception in frivolous suits, doesn't seem to matter. people have and will sue not just because they suffered a harm and expect compensation but for any other reason, like a vendetta against someone. so, because it's fine for a plaintiff to have ulterior motives in his suit, what difference does it make whether the plaintiff's acting on behalf of another?

[Berkut]

Isn't this why we have a jury system?

All these issues, about intent and motive and means...that should all come out in the trial and be presented to the jury. They will either take it seriously or not and render a judgement. That judgement won't always be perfect, but that is the system we have...I don't see any great flaw here, other than the lack of transparency.

[MadImmortalMan]

What ways are available to fight back against a media entity using the throw-grenade-then-publicise-explosion tactic?

It does seem like the little guys are basically at the mercy of the spotlight if they are unlucky enough to get noticed. From that perspective, it does indeed seem like Theil's activities are both charitable and in the public interest.

In terms of public figure status, HH seems rather far down the ladder from either Falwell or Ventura, but what if it was just some regular nobody? Where there other people in HH's sex tape who weren't public figures and were made to endure the spotlight of sauron as a result of this? Presumably he was having sex with a non-public-figure, but I didn't see it.

[Martinus]

But isn't the alternative even worse? If you can only finance your own lawsuits, then media outlets like gawker know that the uber rich are untouchable - because they can destroy them - but everyone else is a fair game.

You sue for 2 million$, for attempt at your private life, as an ordinary citizen.
The lawyer will take his fees off the 2 million$ if you have a valid cause.
Therefore, this part of the justice system is accessible to everyone.

Criminal law is another matter, as could be more difficulte cases like racims&discrimination, hence why some special interest group can take the case not only in the name of the defendant but in the name of all people with similar cases.

Sorry I don't understand at all the point you are trying to make.

[Martinus]

What ways are available to fight back against a media entity using the throw-grenade-then-publicise-explosion tactic?

It does seem like the little guys are basically at the mercy of the spotlight if they are unlucky enough to get noticed. From that perspective, it does indeed seem like Theil's activities are both charitable and in the public interest.

In terms of public figure status, HH seems rather far down the ladder from either Falwell or Ventura, but what if it was just some regular nobody? Where there other people in HH's sex tape who weren't public figures and were made to endure the spotlight of sauron as a result of this? Presumably he was having sex with a non-public-figure, but I didn't see it.

Rich leftist media moguls destroying peoples lives: protect the freedom of press!!!

A bunch of useless teenagers calling someone Jew online: stop the nazis!!!

That's how the regressive left operates these days.

[Capetan Mihali]

In terms of public figure status, HH seems rather far down the ladder from either Falwell or Ventura, but what if it was just some regular nobody? Where there other people in HH's sex tape who weren't public figures and were made to endure the spotlight of sauron as a result of this? Presumably he was having sex with a non-public-figure, but I didn't see it.

Not much of a step down for those of the Wrestlemania generation, and he's tried to stay on the small screen through reality shows etc., but anyways, he turned himself into a public figure for these purposes and turned the sex tape into a "newsworthy" (in the legal term-of-art sense) item by boasting about on the radio show about it beforehand.

[Martinus]

In terms of public figure status, HH seems rather far down the ladder from either Falwell or Ventura, but what if it was just some regular nobody? Where there other people in HH's sex tape who weren't public figures and were made to endure the spotlight of sauron as a result of this? Presumably he was having sex with a non-public-figure, but I didn't see it.

Not much of a step down for those of the Wrestlemania generation, and he's tried to stay on the small screen through reality shows etc., but anyways, he turned himself into a public figure for these purposes and turned the sex tape into a "newsworthy" (in the legal term-of-art sense) item by boasting about on the radio show about it beforehand.

Wow. That's a ridiculous argument. But then this can be expected from you.

[Capetan Mihali]

  This is about US Constitutional law.  How do you think papparazzi/garbage tabloids stay in business?  "Newsworthiness" is defined for First Amendment purpose very, very broadly; and "public figures" forfeit their expectation of privacy, at the very least out in public, and have an extremely hard time making out a defamation action. 

This is one of those areas where US law, as a result of the way the First Amendment has been interpreted, not only diverges sharply from the civil law tradition but also from British common-law standards for the torts of defamation and invasion of privacy.

I'm not sure what the ridiculous argument you are attributing to me is -- could you be more precise?

[Martinus]

But saying that he gave up his right to privacy when he bragged about it is ridiculous. If he bragged his wife has a nice vagina, it does not mean the paparazzi have a right now to publish pictures of it (and remember that the sex tape is not a solo show).

[Capetan Mihali]

But saying that he gave up his right to privacy when he bragged about it is ridiculous. If he bragged his wife has a nice vagina, it does not mean the paparazzi have a right now to publish pictures of it (and remember that the sex tape is not a solo show).

As with the vast majority of your analogies, this one fails.  One is the description of an attribute (of another person), the other is his voluntary publication (to thousands of listeners) of a sexual encounter.  The other person in the sex tape -- if she was shown at all, I don't know if that's clear -- would probably have better grounds to sue Gawker for invasion of privacy.  And to sue Hulk Hogan, for that matter.

[MadImmortalMan]

The other person in the sex tape -- if she was shown at all, I don't know if that's clear -- would probably have better grounds to sue Gawker for invasion of privacy.  And to sue Hulk Hogan, for that matter.

Maybe they should have thrown their money behind that suit instead.

I wonder though---I think the Hulkster may have a better case for higher damages due to potential future losses than some "nobody"--again making the case that the court favors the rich. But I wonder what it's worth to forever have a video of you having sex pop up in an internet search. It's probably proportionally more damaging to a "nobody" than it is to HH.

[Capetan Mihali]

The other person in the sex tape -- if she was shown at all, I don't know if that's clear -- would probably have better grounds to sue Gawker for invasion of privacy.  And to sue Hulk Hogan, for that matter.

Maybe they should have thrown their money behind that suit instead.

I wonder though---I think the Hulkster may have a better case for higher damages due to potential future losses than some "nobody"--again making the case that the court favors the rich. But I wonder what it's worth to forever have a video of you having sex pop up in an internet search. It's probably proportionally more damaging to a "nobody" than it is to HH.

Yeah, the "appropriation of personality" tort he included in his suit that I was wondering about, at the very least.

[viper37]

But isn't the alternative even worse? If you can only finance your own lawsuits, then media outlets like gawker know that the uber rich are untouchable - because they can destroy them - but everyone else is a fair game.

You sue for 2 million$, for attempt at your private life, as an ordinary citizen.
The lawyer will take his fees off the 2 million$ if you have a valid cause.
Therefore, this part of the justice system is accessible to everyone.

Criminal law is another matter, as could be more difficulte cases like racims&discrimination, hence why some special interest group can take the case not only in the name of the defendant but in the name of all people with similar cases.

Sorry I don't understand at all the point you are trying to make.

In libel case, it is very easy to find a lawyer that will take your case, if it is remotely serious, and sue the big media.  He will then take a portion of the settlement as payment.

So it is not true that the little guy has no chance against the big media.

[Martinus]

Not a very good lawyer, though.