Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:59AM   Printer-friendly
from the best-justice-money-can-buy dept.

Two Soylentils wrote in with an update on Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker. After these stories were submitted, it appears to have been confirmed by The New York Times that Thiel paid $10 million to fund the lawsuit.

Peter Thiel Funded Hulk Hogan's Lawsuit Against Gawker

Peter Thiel, the billionaire Silicon Valley venture capitalist and libertarian who we have reported on several times, reportedly bankrolled former wrestler Hulk Hogan's (real name: Terry Bollea) lawsuit against Gawker. After Gawker published a sex tape featuring Bollea, Bollea sued and was eventually awarded $140 million by a jury. That decision is being appealed.

Thiel has had several run-ins with Gawker's reporting on his political and financial decisions, but the most prominent incident was in 2007, when the website's then-running gossip vertical Valleywag outed Thiel's sexual orientation in a post titled, "Peter Thiel is totally gay, people."

Thiel, who is now open about being gay, later called Valleywag "the Silicon Valley equivalent of Al Qaeda."

Although the exact details of the arrangement between Thiel and Bollea are unknown, if Thiel negotiated for a share of the lawsuit's proceeds, he may get to stick it to Gawker while earning millions of dollars.

[Continues...]

Hulk Hogan's Sex Tape and a Tech Billionaire's Revenge on Gawker

El Reg reports

Hogan's legal team specifically dropped a part of his lawsuit that would have seen Gawker's insurance company pick up the tab. On top of which, Hogan reportedly turned down a $10M settlement offer from Gawker to stop the case going to court.

Increasingly, it looked as though, [rather than compensating Hogan,] the lawsuit's main focus was to ruin Gawker--which does not have $140M in assets and would have to declare bankruptcy if the judgment stands.

Previous: Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million in Privacy Suit Against Gawker Media


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:18AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:18AM (#351880)

    If true this has to be one of the best revenge tales ever told. Don't get mad, get even!

    I'd love to see most of the legacy media destroyed thus. A nest of vipers all, equally full of an undeserved importance, incompetence and malicious lies.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:43AM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:43AM (#351884) Journal

    The enemy of your enemy isn't your friend, idiot. This is an awful precedent for the first amendment, and is a further conflation of money with "free speech."

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by moondoctor on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:53AM

      by moondoctor (2963) on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:53AM (#351945)

      Have to disagree, not going to call you names though. Gawker fucked Thiel, he found a way to fuck them back with a 'friend' created by their mutual enemy.

      Moreover: This has nothing to do with 'free speech' - this is straight up media ethics and it's consequences in modern society.

      WTF? First Amendment? Some serious misunderstanding around this these days. Much of it manipulated and wilful.

      Free speech is the freedom from prosecution *by the government* and protection for saying stuff people don't like. Society at large is free to treat you however they feel, within the bounds of the law. You are free to say and express stupid and dickish things, but your are not free from the societal consequences of said dickishness. You can say dumb shit in any public space as long as you aren't breaking the law - i.e. being a public nuisance, assaulting people, and so on. But, nobody has to listen to, report on or broadcast that shit if they don't want to.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:38AM (#351953)

        would you be so happy with the results if Thiel had a hard-on for soylent instead of gawker?

        furthermore, thiel is on record saying he does not support democracy, he wants the country to be run by a "great man"

        Pick at any system with enough force and you can make it unravel, should a guy with those kinds of resources and that disdain for our system of government be trusted not to exploit the legal system?

        • (Score: 2) by moondoctor on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:09PM

          by moondoctor (2963) on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:09PM (#351963)

          This is a bitch fight in the media, so it really doesn't matter. It's not a first amendment issue, that's all I'm saying.

          Regarding Soylent, thing is, the target is entirely irrelevant. Peter Thiel's politics are entirely irrelevant.

          And as to the unravelling of the justice system - *Nobody* should be trusted to not exploit the legal system, that's the point of a legal system...

          A just, healthy, and robust legal system is the only solution. As a society we can only strive to get as close as possible to that ideal, and have an obligation to do so.

          Now, nowhere did I ever express being 'happy' about this. Putting words in my mouth is no way to play, son. Gawker lighting itself on fire is a loss for me, not happy about it at all. Jalopnik was pretty much my favourite place for an informed, amusing, civil but lively debate. One of the few places I used to do more than lurk. Gawker's actions finally made me uncomfortable supporting them, so sadly Jalop is gone from my bookmarks. Wasn't that hard really, they were in meltdown mode anyway. I did like IO9, Gizmodo and Jalopnik before they shit the bed. If soylent had pulled some kind of shit on par with what gawker did, then yes I'd be all for it. And that bookmark would go. Not worried about that, though. Thing I really like about this place is that it feels very true to it's principles, and they are principles I'm down with.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:55PM

            by JNCF (4317) on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:55PM (#352008) Journal

            It's not a first amendment issue, that's all I'm saying.

            This is totally a first amendment issue. I don't think the quote I'm about to provide proves that the Supreme Court feels libel laws are always unconstitutional (often seemingly contradictory statements can be found in judicial statements), but I do think it establishes that they see libel laws as being an encroachment on first amendment rights, whether justified or not in a given case. Without further ado, from Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in Rosenblatt v. Baer:

            The only sure way to protect speech and press against these threats is to recognize that libel laws are abridgments of speech and press and therefore are barred in both federal and state courts by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. I repeat what I said in the New York Times case that ‘An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.’

            Whether the punishment is prison or fine, a law restricting speech is a law restricting speech. It doesn't matter if somebody has to launch a lawsuit. I have no respect for Gawker, but I hope they win this one.

            • (Score: 2) by moondoctor on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:29PM

              by moondoctor (2963) on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:29PM (#352025)

              I take your point, and it's a very good one, however I see things slightly different. In my opinion as a privately owned entertainment site Gawker is out of the scope of the first amendment. They deserve no protection from their morally questionable actions. I would argue that the first amendment protections in this situation would come from libel laws that are impeccable and work properly.

              In a nutshell:

                ‘An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.’

              Damn straight. But I don't have publish it on my website and if I do I'm responsible for the consequences. They acted like bitches and got bitch slapped.

              I think for me the grey area arises form the fact that these were private affairs of public figures, so it's more complex.

              • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by JNCF on Saturday May 28 2016, @08:03PM

                by JNCF (4317) on Saturday May 28 2016, @08:03PM (#352031) Journal

                You sure do like saying "bitch" a lot; may I suggest you find some other gendered vulgarities to throw around? When I want to problematically imply that someone is acting like I woman, in a bad way, I like to mix up my "bitch"es with the occasional "cunt," and "cum-dumpster," and "pussy," among others. It cuts down on repetition, if not crassness. :P

                In my opinion as a privately owned entertainment site Gawker is out of the scope of the first amendment.

                So if I posted the same information on a personal blog, as an individual and not a corporation, would you want the government to hold me financially liable?

                • (Score: 2) by moondoctor on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:11PM

                  by moondoctor (2963) on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:11PM (#352054)

                  Don't matter... 'Private' in this context means non-governmental, so either your personal blog or a corporate blog is fine. If the libel laws are fair and you are held financially liable by the government then yes, you pay up.

                  Real journalism is held to a higher standard and handled differently. Democracy cannot function without an informed population, so journalism is a fundamental part of the process. The founding fathers understood this. By being an 'entertainment' company many media outlets avoid any responsibility that old-school honest journalists felt a duty to follow. Do no harm is one of the tenets of proper journalism and that site seems to go for the opposite. Fuck 'em.

                  Sorry about the bitches and any offence caused. I meant nasty and malicious.

                  • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:39PM

                    by JNCF (4317) on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:39PM (#352058) Journal

                    Sorry about the bitches and any offence caused. I meant nasty and malicious.

                    Lulz, it's pretty hard to offend me. I just think that the implications some words have in certain contexts go unexamined sometimes, and I appreciate that you were open to my ribbing criticism instead of becoming defensive! My point was merely that the use of the word "bitch" as an insult is an insult by comparison with women, which seems sort of problematic. I still catch myself using it in spoken conversation sometimes, but I think I've cut it from my writing.

                    'Private' in this context means non-governmental, so either your personal blog or a corporate blog is fine. If the libel laws are fair and you are held financially liable by the government then yes, you pay up.

                    I'm wondering if you see your word use here as being consistent with your earlier statement:

                    In my opinion as a privately owned entertainment site Gawker is out of the scope of the first amendment.

                    Inconsistent word use between comments is totally understandable, I just don't want to be misinterpretting you. Between the two statements, I read this as saying that non-government entities are outside the scope of the first amendment, which doesn't seem reasonable to me given that the Bill of Rights was all about spelling out certain things the government couldn't do to people. I think I must be misunderstanding.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:20PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:20PM (#352064)

                      Don't be such a fucking cunt, bitch.

                      • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:03PM

                        by JNCF (4317) on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:03PM (#352073) Journal

                        Spoken like a wimpy, whiny fish-taco.

                    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:40AM

                      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:40AM (#352095)

                      My point was merely that the use of the word "bitch" as an insult is an insult by comparison with women

                      That depends entirely on the intentions of the person using the word. No words are inherently bad; it depends on how you use them. And of course, a single word can have multiple definitions and uses.

                      • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:57AM

                        by JNCF (4317) on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:57AM (#352098) Journal

                        I definitely agree that the meaning of a word depends on context, and I did say "as an insult." You're right though, this is still overly broad; I can think of hypotheticals where it isn't an implicit comparison. But I think that if you're using "bitch" to mean "nagging," "whiny," "emotional," etc., or when the term is applied to men who are acting effeminate, I think it's pretty obvious that this use etymologically comes from a comparison to negative female stereotypes. I think the use in question, which referred to a gay Gawker writer outing Thiel as a "bitch fight" and said that Gawker "acted like bitches and got bitch slapped" seems to fall under this umbrella. I'm not accusing anybody of being purposefully sexist or homophobic, I really just see it as unexamined language (now explicitly examined, hopefully to positive affect).

                        • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday May 29 2016, @01:03AM

                          by JNCF (4317) on Sunday May 29 2016, @01:03AM (#352099) Journal

                          P.S.
                          I think you're focusing on conscious intention, and I'm focusing on how the term came about. I think both are interesting, and different, lenses to view it from. I think language can imply something without that thing being intended by the author.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29 2016, @11:40AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29 2016, @11:40AM (#352231)

              This is totally a first amendment issue.

              You are free to wave your arms around as you please but that freedom stops at the end of my nose! You have freedom of speech and expression but cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre! Such negative and anti-social freedoms are restricted.

              The press must responsibly balance the personal privacy of individuals with the public interest. As in the example of a preacher campaigning against homosexuals while engaging in clandestine homosexual relations with young men; there is a demonstrable public interest in exposing the hypocrisy. If there is no public interest then peoples personal lives or lawful sexual proclivities are simply no business of anybody else.

              The unjustifiable violation of others privacy and interpersonal boundaries for personal gain is more accurately termed sociopathy than journalism. In the UK, truth is not a defence against slander or libel. Absent a public interest defence, the only possible intent must be defamatory in nature. Indeed, one of the Gawker properties is actually titled "defamer".

              To summize: The right of individuals to erect advertising billboards throughout your geographic locale that accuse JNCF of fucking stray dogs should not be protected speech.

              • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday May 29 2016, @05:33PM

                by JNCF (4317) on Sunday May 29 2016, @05:33PM (#352299) Journal

                To summize: The right of individuals to erect advertising billboards throughout your geographic locale that accuse JNCF of fucking stray dogs should not be protected speech.

                I would like that speech to be unpoliced. I'm not arguing that the Supreme Court would agree with this desire of mine, only that they would agree that the first amendment is relevant to the case. It's a first amendment issue, whether it stands as protected or not.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:11PM

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:11PM (#351964) Homepage

          would you be so happy with the results if Thiel had a hard-on for soylent instead of gawker?

          If Solyent started making of thing of detailing the personal, private habits of people in the public eye, then yeah, probably.

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:17PM (#351965)

          What you mentioned should have no bearing on the legal arguments of the case. It doesn't matter if he supports North Korea, doesn't like ice cream, or if his favorite color is black.

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by Tork on Saturday May 28 2016, @01:20PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 28 2016, @01:20PM (#351973)
          There's a reason I come here and not Gawker.
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:36AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:36AM (#352093)

        Free speech is the freedom from prosecution *by the government* and protection for saying stuff people don't like.

        No, that's the legal implementation of free speech. The concept of free speech--being able to speak freely without being censored, etc.--is much broader than that.

    • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:19PM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:19PM (#351979) Journal

      Perhaps. The enemy of my enemy is still the enemy of my enemy. You should know why you don't out people. Owen Thomas should have known too. Coming out ends friendships and breaks families apart. It destroys careers. It shouldn't be that way, but it is that way. Sometimes a person gets lucky, and coming out does none of those things.

      Now, there is the Lyin' Ted exception (well, asshole Republican exception), but I don't think that applies here. Seeing as how that one is usually tied to pedophilia or questionable expenses, there's usually not much of a grey area.

      Thomas justifies his article by implying that it was already common knowledge that Thiel was gay:

      I did discuss his sexuality, but it was known to a wide circle who felt that it was not fit for discussion beyond that circle. I thought that attitude was retrograde and homophobic, and that informed my reporting. I believe that he was out and not in the closet.

      I find that self-contradictory. Thomas admits that Thiel's sexual orientation was not fit for discussion beyond a “wide circle,” but then he leaps to presuming that constitutes being out. He essentially asserts that he knew better than Thiel about how to handle knowledge of Thiel's sexual orientation. That strikes me as a dangerous notion.

      As far as free speech, the media needs to be responsible about what they publish. Thiel has a point:

      I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest….

      I can defend myself. Most of the people they attack are not people in my category. They usually attack less prominent, far less wealthy people that simply can’t defend themselves.

      There is no public interest in outing somebody simply because one thinks they should be out in the interests of some greater good. It's not one's decision to make. If there were credible evidence that Pat McCrory, just to pick on him, were secretly a crossdresser and desired to be a woman, there would be a public interest in publishing that. (Hence the Lyin' Ted exception.)

      It's unfortunate that our legal system is pay to play. I don't know how to fix that. I don't see a conflict here with free speech. As Mary Anne Franks (prof University of Miami School of Law) states in TFA, “If you really do have concerns about the merits of this case, finding out who bankrolled it doesn’t really help you at all.”

      Thiel also gets into his methodology.

      Without going into all the details, we would get in touch with the plaintiffs who otherwise would have accepted a pittance for a settlement, and they were obviously quite happy to have this sort of support….

      I would underscore that I don’t expect to make any money from this. This is not a business venture.

      So it's troubling that we have a pay to play system, but it's also troubling that said pay to play system encourages people to settle for less than being made whole. So whether or not Thiel bankrolled Bollea's lawsuit is immaterial if we're comparing the current system to a hypothetical system where Bollea could have brought the case to trial on his own.

      The one thing that does leave a bad taste in my mouth is that the part of the suit having Gawker's insurance cover the damages was dropped. It would have been the higher road to allow the insurance company to pay out the damages. Then it would be between Gawker and insurance just what the cost of their giant bullhorn is in terms of doing business. It would be much more satisfying for Gawker's big mouth to price them out of the insurance market.

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday May 30 2016, @03:57AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Monday May 30 2016, @03:57AM (#352481)

        It would have been the higher road to allow the insurance company to pay out the damages.

        Not at all, then it would have just been about the money. Beyond getting the insurance company out of the picture these lawyers have managed to get Gawker's principle held -personally- liable. They don't want the money from some insurance company who would just pass it on in higher rates for everyone. The idea is to break Gawker Media and to break Nick Denton personally, in a very long, public and painful process as an example to others. They don't have anything like $140Mil so the actual money they end up getting will probably pay legal fees and pay for a big party to celebrate. It certainly will not make up for the damage to Hogan's reputation. But they will have provided a great public service by cleaning out a vile hive of scum and villainy.

    • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:58PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:58PM (#351983) Journal

      I thought the involuntary outing of any LGBTQ person was on the moral level of a hate crime? Why did Gawker get a pass on betraying Thiel's personal life to get a few clicks? And why are we surprised a billionaire would fight back?

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday May 29 2016, @02:38AM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Sunday May 29 2016, @02:38AM (#352118) Journal

        I consider it as such at least due to the destruction it can cause. Gawker is caught in an SJW paradox. Thomas took judgement of how to best handle the information that Thiel is homosexual into his own hands. As an SJW, Thomas thought he could serve the greater good by announcing Thiel's sexual orientation.

        This is the inherent contradiction of the SJWs. They are beholden to their social justice values, but they are ignorant as to the consequences of their actions on individuals.

      • (Score: 1) by boxfetish on Sunday May 29 2016, @03:00AM

        by boxfetish (4831) on Sunday May 29 2016, @03:00AM (#352123)

        I am not (necessarily) defending Gawker here, but I believe the rationale is that Peter Thiel actively works against LGBTQ rights/causes and is, himself, gay. That is newsworthy as many LGBTQ persons who might otherwise tend to admire him or view him as a role model (blech!) would want to know this.

        • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday May 30 2016, @04:00AM

          by jmorris (4844) on Monday May 30 2016, @04:00AM (#352482)

          Translation: The uppity faggot doesn't know his place. Got it.

          Amazing how gays don't know enough to know what they want, women must be told what they want by their betters, blacks who aren't part of the race grievance industry aren't 'authentically black' and so on. One would almost think they are helpless pawns in the political machinations of progressives... but that can't be true, right?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:04AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:04AM (#351914)

    "Of course," he said, "you're a new neighbour, aren't you?"

    "And you must be"—she raised her eyes from his professional symbols—"the fireman." Her voice trailed off.

    "How oddly you say that."

    "I'd—I'd have known it with my eyes shut," she said, slowly.

    "What—the smell of kerosene? My wife always complains," he laughed. "You never wash it off completely."

    "No, you don't," she said, in awe.