General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 341

you should probably read more about what happened.

 

I got Very Liberal. No other politics related boxes other than "American Culture"

 

Gee if only Mylan donated to the Clinton Foundation they could have gotten better treatment.

 

I have read plenty about what happened. I am interested to hear what you think happened. What Thiel did was not unethical, illegal, or even uncommon (lawsuits against large entities with deep pockets are sponsored by others all the time).

I get that a lot of the criticism against Thiel is colored by his politics, but aside from that, I am not sure what it is he did that everyone is finding so abhorrent.

 

Yes, it does make a difference. If Hogan hadn't had access to unlimited resources, he would have been forced to settle. That he was bankrolled by Thiel allowed him to continue on in this process and ensure that as much damage as possible was done to Gawker itself. The determining factor, therefore, wasn't jurisprudence or "due process" so much as having billions of dollars. Further, Hogan's lawsuit isn't the only one that Thiel funded in an effort to continuously ensure that the company was destroyed utterly. The precedent this sets, then, is for billionaires to simply fund an assortment of lawsuits against media companies, hoping that one sticks, and then dismantling them. I'm not a big reader of the site, but the implications seem apparent to me. We already exist in an ecosystem that allows the rich to set the framework for how things will proceed in this country, but now they can use their money to undermine independent media and ensure they will collapse.

 

She gave an ethics statement on the Foundation when she became sos, if there is a case of ethical malfeasance, it should absolutely be brought up and discussed - but so far, there isn't. The worst that's been found by the far right legal group "justice watch" has been released. And it's nothing. Having a highly rated, separately run, charitable foundation is not an ethical violation and attempts to draw parallels between donors and favors has failed at every attempt. And it's not like a causation case isn't what every right leaning journalist/researcher is trying. If something shows up, I'll be the first to be pissed, that's why I read about it constantly. But until then the charity is literally saving lives.

 

What he did is absolutely unethical. A billionaire being able to drown a news outlet with legal fees despite the truth of what they reported is bad. He did it over petty grievances about how they mocked him for being an idiot libertarian vampire. You can see it now, with Trump threatening legal action against Politico for accurately reporting that Melania may have been lying about her immigration status in the 90s. Trump is even using the exact same lawyer that Thiel did. That is bad. It's a distortion of the legal process designed to stifle the voice of the free press when it operates in a way opposite to an Elite's interests. That is bad. This is fundamentally obvious and if you don't see the problem with it you may not fully understand what's happening, which is why I said you should read more about it. You shouldnt be able to drive a news outlet out of business because you don't like what they report. That's their entire purpose.

 

And you are saying this like it's a negative. Someone not having enough money to sue a major media corporation is out of luck?

 

Gawkers problem was they played it too fast and loose with the law. When you have a "gawker law" being proposed all about your awful revenge porn ... your legal footing for operating is already thin.

 

I am not sure what you are condemning here. Celebrities can't sue media organizations for invading their privacy? Jennifer Lawrence shouldn't have been allowed to sue Google after nude pictures were leaked of her? What is it that you object to here? That Hogan sued? That his lawsuit was funded by a 3rd party? That he won?

EDIT: spelling error

 

I thought Thiel was against Gawker because they outed him several years ago

 

Correct. They have outed a few people if I recall correctly.

 

They didn't out Thiel as such, as far as I know.

 

Hogan is rich. So, let's not act as though this is pro bono work for the homeless or something like that. What people are concerned about is that it will set a precedent for people with money to shut down media outlets that criticize them. I don't think you're engaging in this in good faith, so I won't continue explaining it to you. Maybe someone else will be able to dig through these Reddit-like responses.

 

Lawrence didn't sue Google. Google Responds to Jennifer Lawrence Attorney's $100 Million Lawsuit Threat

I object to someone distorting the process with the specific aim of taking down a legally operating media outlet. Every outlet makes mistakes, it's part of having a free press. They should not be forced to shutter because someone has enough money to overwhelm their resources and abilities. If Thiel had funded suits against the New York Times for helping make the case for the Iraq War - which was infinitely worse than a minute of a sex tape of a C list celebrity - and forced it to close down over those stories it would still be bad.

That's the rationale he's adopted publicly, but considering in the aftermath of the outing (even though he was already largely out in Silicon Valley) he attempted to win over Gawker and then shifted strategies as they intensified their mocking of his idiotic politics and business ventures/practices, I'm gonna say that's not the whole story.

 

The upcoming implosion is going to be interesting.

 

What revenge porn did they post?

 

Full-disclosure: I don't give a shit about Gawker. It is a terrible site. I disagree with Thiel's actions. We can set aside our dislike of something to understand and critique methods that actually have broader implications for the media. In particular, the online media, which actually has some independence from corporate influence.

 

I apologize if I am coming off as antagonistic. That isn't my intention.

Where you are losing with your argument is that Gawker didn't criticize Hogan, they posted a sex tape of it and refused to take it down. This is one of a long list of sociopathic behavior that the site engaged in. If all they had done is criticize him, he surely would have lost the lawsuit no matter who was funding it.

 

The Intimate Privacy Protection Act would have probably put them in hot water over the Hogan tape.

 

I'm referring to Thiel.

 

What process was distorted? I am not sure I understand what you mean about media outlets "making mistakes" as if Gawker's posting of a sex tape is some awe shucks gee-golly blunder. I am also not sure why you brought up the Iraq War. You seem to be arguing against a scenario that didn't happen, or I could just be misunderstanding.

So, in other words, you created your own reason why Thiel hated Gawker?

 

Is that revenge porn? I was under the impression revenge porn was usually something posted by like a jilted ex. This just seemed like a more general shitty invasion of privacy.

 

To be fair they did survive, and sell themselves, and then shut themselves down because, by most accounts: they can make more money for the other sites without Gawker existing. Gawker.com was itself not very profitable and apparently harmed the other properties.

This entire case bothers me for a variety of levels ... the first being Gawker did some horrible stuff, which I believe they're allowed to do within the confines of the law. But, they broke the law as well. I don't think the NYT is going to be sued out of business by a billionaire, because at the very least they hire thousands of lawyers to avoid that (and have the backing and prestige to take any case as far as needed in court, they do this a lot), Gawker insisted on doing the opposite, and played it fast and loose with the law. I bemoan their fate, and how it occurred, but I'm not sure it will actually create a slippery slope of precedent for people to take down news sites due to libelous journalism. Trump saying he'll "open up" libel laws scares me far more than Hogan suing a website for posting a porn tape of him.

 

"non-consensual pornographic images and video that are shared over the internet"

I think that would fit with what happened.