Discussion
  • Read More
    AnnieW50J.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 9:58am

    This was linked to in an earlier thread, but even people critical of Gawker don’t like this development.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-huge-…

    It’s all over Facebook now, too.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      XrdsAlumAnnieW50
      5/25/16 10:09am

      It’s like they’re taking courses in Chilling Effects 101 from Professor Putin. Thin-skinned billionaire oligarchs with personal vendettas are very effective and clever that way.

      Thiel has been open about expressing his contempt for democratic institutions. He’s a leading figure in the Dark Enlightenment/alt-right movement. Along with his support for the spray-tanned huckster, undermining freedom of the press (while rewarding fraudsters like O’Keefe) is another way he’s trying to create the chaos necessary to establishing the neofeudal corporate utopia of his dreams.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      opiumsmabytchAnnieW50
      5/25/16 10:11am

      Now sure enough, this evening Forbes reported that the bankroller of the Hogan suit is none other than Peter Thiel, a prominent Silicon Valley billionaire who styles himself a libertarian but somewhat incongruously is a big time supporter of Donald Drumpf in addition to numerous other right wing causes, most of which have a distinctly Randian cast.

      But being able to give massive political contributions actually pales in comparison to the impact of being able to destroy a publication you don’t like by combining the machinery of the courts with anonymity and unlimited funds to bleed a publication dry.

      Hollllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiittttt............

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SquintsJ.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 9:55am

    Sweet. Deserved since a Gawker editor said he would have published any sex tape he could get, provided all participants were at least five years old.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Flying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)Squints
      5/25/16 9:58am

      Yes, billionaires trying to silence the media that they don’t personally care for is a terrific thing, isn’t it?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Rich Uncle SkeletonSquints
      5/25/16 9:58am

      I too, take flippant remarks seriously at all times.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    AnarchyOfTasteJ.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 10:08am

    I don’t really care who’s paying for Hulks’s legal team. You guys fucked up, and this story is a giant red herring crafted to gain sympathy from those who want to distance themselves from the likes of Thiel. It’s an appeal to the simple minded.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      librarian11AnarchyOfTaste
      5/25/16 10:15am

      You overestimate the intelligence of the gawker writers and commenters. Simple minded is a step up.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ZukkaAnarchyOfTaste
      5/25/16 10:15am

      Hmmmm, that’s not entirely correct though.

      Look, Gawker definitely fucked up, but this is a very dangerous precedent. Basically you have a man with lots of income who is affecting media in ways he shouldn’t be able to, simply because he has a grudge. Maybe Gawker in this one case deserves it, maybe not (I’d say they fucked up more with Conde Nast than with Hulk Hogan- lots of places publish sex tapes, it’s intellectually dishonest to go after 1 place for doing it and not others). But this is not good.

      Let’s say the Times is investigating some illegal activity that the Koch brothers are involved in, and in order to get the Times off their trail they help some asshole sue the Times... Can you really not see how this behavior is bad?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Sean BrodyJ.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 10:02am

    So outing Thiel is likely gonna cost Denton his empire, while Jordan Sargent outing the Conde Nast guy last year cost Denton all of the public’s - and a good deal of his readership’s - sympathy, which might have come in handy in a situation like this.

    Outing gay people is such a strange hill to die on in 2016.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Grizzled VeteranSean Brody
      5/25/16 10:07am

      It’s the hill Gawker deserves to die on. I look forward to the aftermath.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Alvin Tostig's SonSean Brody
      5/25/16 10:08am

      Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it?

      I have no particular sympathy for Thiel, but if you’re going to continually post irrelevant personal information and rumors about people and call it news, it’s inevitably going to be your downfall.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ReburnsABurningReturnsJ.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 10:01am

    A lawsuit involving Gawker and Hulk Hogan has devolved into a shitshow involving lots of things that don’t actually pertain at all to the merits (or lack thereof) of the suit itself?

    How shocking.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ThriceStaleyReburnsABurningReturns
      5/25/16 10:18am

      Gawker isn't discussing the merits because they lost, rightfully, on the merits. So now they want to drag an enemy into the fray and discuss who is "funding" the litigation. Who gives two fucks who is funding Hogan's lawsuit. It was meritorious as decided by the Jury. I don't care if the Church of Satan funded the suit.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ReburnsABurningReturnsThriceStaley
      5/25/16 10:24am

      Eh, sure this is all legal, but it is a bit tawdry.

      I’m not sure what I think about the merits of the case, but there are a few things I do think.

      1. The Florida judge who allowed that award was known beforehand to be a complete joke of a judge. To me that also taints the merits of the case.

      2. There’s no reasonable math that can be used to come up with $140 million in damages.

      3. AJ being a complete shithead in court clearly weighed on the jury’s opinion, even though him being a complete shithead had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    PrettyLegitJ.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 10:09am

    Maybe if Gawker didnt have such a fetish for outing gay people they’d be a bit better off.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Flying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)PrettyLegit
      5/25/16 10:11am

      Maybe if she hadn’t worn that skimpy outfit...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      sulkamaniaFlying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)
      5/25/16 10:19am

      oooooh I love a good false equivalency after my coffee in the morning

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    jcbgJ.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 10:01am

    “Gawker and Valleywag, Gawker Media’s defunct tech gossip vertical, have often written critically of Thiel and his investments, covering the failure of his hedge fund Clarium Capital, his right-wing politics, and his personal life.”


    Mess with the bull you get the horns.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      the johnjcbg
      5/25/16 10:11am

      I think there was a legitimate point being made in 2008 in outing a right-winger in the closet. Exposing hypocrisy is a duty of journalism, no? This guy was bankrolling the very people who would prevent people like him from enjoying the rights of full citizenship. His money and privilege made him immune to the effects of those laws, and only by outing him was he made to feel discomfort.

      Now, the Conde-Nast thing? No excuses there. As to Hogan, I think the jury got it wrong. But I’m just a guy on the internet. If Gawker goes down, I’ll lose the only place I bother to comment. The bigger price will be paid by journalism itself.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      HeroInGrayXXIthe john
      5/25/16 10:16am

      I agree. And that was why there was no lawsuit. It would have been baseless. But, when that outed billionaire wants revenge, best not to give him an opportunity to exact it. AJ screwed up by giving Thiel the means to go medieval.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SoapBoxcarWillieJ.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 10:10am

    So a Libertarian like Peter Thiel believes in the free press, but also the power to sue people who write things about him that are true, but that he’d rather not be written, into nonexistence. So a free press in name only, always in fear of backlash from moneyed and powerful elites like Thiel.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SenoritaSprinklebunsSoapBoxcarWillie
      5/25/16 10:13am

      That’s why when I hear Libertarian I roll my eyes. They're for the most part closet Republicans of the Tea party bent

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      phunkshunSoapBoxcarWillie
      5/25/16 10:15am

      Libertraianism is, in effect, the full embrace of the concept of Justice being exclusively in the interest of The Stronger.

      The whole thing about a perfectly rational utopia and not using coersion by force is fine and dandy...for those that cannot apply force.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ThrumbolioJ.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 10:10am

    Not a big fan of billionnaires being able to bankroll lawsuits. No, I don’t care to be convinced otherwise. Sets a bad precedent.

    Regarding this “tag team,” though...yeah, aggressive journalism has consequences, particularly when you’re targeting someone’s personal life. Might’ve been good to learn the “maybe...don’t do that?” lesson a bit earlier than last year.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      berningreburnThrumbolio
      5/25/16 10:18am

      Maybe this is why so many news outlets are scared of going after Trump. They only have “facts” and “the truth” on their side while he has billions of dollars and an army of lawyers

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Thrumbolioberningreburn
      5/25/16 10:21am

      Well, I think it might have more to do with the fact that Trump = ratings.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    LordBurleighJ.K. Trotter
    5/25/16 9:58am

    “Committee to Protect Journalists” indeed. What a megalomaniacal tool.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AnnieW50LordBurleigh
      5/25/16 10:00am

      I know. And he really meant to protect the “right” kind of journalists.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Sir HalffastLordBurleigh
      5/25/16 10:11am

      Don’t drag them in to this. CPJ is a very good organization doing good work around the world in places where journalists are routinely beaten and killed for reporting on the activities of authorities. If anything, his support of them is ironic in its lack of awareness of their actual mission. I don’t suspect that they would much approve of his Trump-backing.

      Reply
      <