Peter Thiel Backs Hulk Hogan’s Lawsuit Against Gawker

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Melody Bot, May 26, 2016.

  1. Melody Bot

    Your friendly little forum bot. Staff Member

    This article has been imported from chorus.fm for discussion. All of the forum rules still apply.

    One of the more interesting stories in the journalism space over the past week has been the revelation that billionaire Peter Thiel has been secretly funding Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker. I think, not surprisingly, I agree most with John Gruber’s take:


    It’s free speech on both sides. Thiel was free to secretly back (and apparently strategically steer) Hogan’s case against Gawker. But Gawker founder Nick Denton was free to air his suspicion that Hogan had a billionaire Silicon Valley backer, and Forbes was free to out Thiel as said backer. And now commentators who are appalled are free to express their outrage at Thiel, perhaps embarrassing him and making it less likely that he or others of similar super-wealth will do this in the future.

    You’re free to do stupid shit under the banner of free speech, and I’m free to say so.

     
  2. Sander

    kflkmflkm

    Thiel is doing the right thing.
     
    Raku and devenstonow like this.
  3. sawhney[rusted]

    luv is blind

    Gawker: "wow thiel that's so gay"
     
  4. sponsor
  5. Brenden

    Trusted Prestigious

    I haven't read to much into it but is he doing this because Gawker is a competitor to him in some way? I don't get the motive
     
  6. Osceola13

    Bringin the ruckus

    I believe Gawker outed him a few years ago so it's understandable why he'd hold a grudge.
     
    Raku likes this.
  7. Chaplain Tappman

    Trusted Prestigious

    no he is not
     
  8. Chaplain Tappman

    Trusted Prestigious

    billionaires flooding news outlets with litigation to annihilate them is not the wave
     
  9. transrebel59

    Regular

    Would you have had a problem with a billionaire taking legal action against the people/publications behind the massive celebrity nudes leak last year?
     
  10. Chaplain Tappman

    Trusted Prestigious

    If a billionaire who wasn't involved in the actual issue at hand took an interest in it because they didn't like a publication over other things - I can't think of any reputable ones that actually posted the images or did any reporting besides "this happened, it exists" - yeah I would have an issue with it.

    It's readily apparent Thiel isn't suing them over concern for Hulk Hogans privacy, otherwise he wouldn't be funded an asinine lawsuit filed by a wacko who claimed to have invented email. It's also honestly kind of unlikely he actually cares very much at this point that he was outed by them (which is and was reprehensible and bad) but has a vendetta due to their other reporting on him being a piece of shit human.
     
  11. Jonathan

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Verified

    Raku likes this.
  12. Chaplain Tappman

    Trusted Prestigious

    Jonathan likes this.
  13. Jonathan

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Verified

    That comment must've exhausted you. :-)
     
  14. Jason Tate May 26, 2016
    (Last edited: May 26, 2016)
    Jason Tate

    chorus.fm @jason_tate @encorepodcast Staff Member

    That guys flat out says Thiel didn't for what it's worth.
     
    Jonathan likes this.
  15. Chaplain Tappman May 27, 2016
    (Last edited: May 27, 2016)
    Chaplain Tappman

    Trusted Prestigious

    Really? I hadn't seen that as of when I posted. Link by chance
    Edit: ah, found it. On his blog. Wasn't turning up on quick googles for whatever reason. Well, alright then. I dunno how trustworthy his claims are considering he has been pretty blatantly lying about inventing email for years but okay, if we take him at his word, then I retract that. Still not a good thing for someone to be able to drive a media outlet out of business threw sheer attrition of legal fees and decisions.
     
  16. Davjs

    Trusted

    Thiel didn't pay off the Jury, judge or anything like that....he just paid for Hogan's legal expenses right? I don't see what is wrong about that. A jury still found them guilty without any outside influence.