SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:38AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Don't be such a fucking cunt, bitch.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:03PM
Spoken like a wimpy, whiny fish-taco.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:40AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈