Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

25 点作者 dirtyaura将近 9 年前

13 条评论

gonmf将近 9 年前

Gawker are scum. They disobeyed a court order. They deserved the lawsuit. If you want freedom of speech to out people and attack everyone, expect people with money to use said money to fight back legally. It's their freedom too.

评论 #11791534 未加载

评论 #11791689 未加载

评论 #11791519 未加载

yummyfajitas将近 9 年前

I have no idea why everyone thinks this is doing something unusual. Using lawsuits to stifle free speech is commonplace.For example, using lawsuits to stifle climate skepticism: <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-into-silence-on-global-warming" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenae...</a>Hillary Clinton was famous for shutting down free speech - her critics had to go all the way to the supreme Court to protect their right to criticize politicians (see citizens united).Or see SPLC vs Aryan Nation, which is exactly some wealthy philanthropists funding a lawsuit by a third party: <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/aryan-nations" rel="nofollow">https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou...</a>The only thing new about this is that the mainstream media suddenly notices this stuff hitting closer to home.

评论 #11793730 未加载

评论 #11794351 未加载

insane_dreamer将近 9 年前

There are so many things wrong with this article that I don't even know where to start.* Gawker does not deal in journalism any more than Keeping up with the Kardashians does. It's an entertainment company that makes a profit by exposing details of people's lives which other people have no business knowing. There's an argument to be made that the world be better off with that type of gutter "journalism". It's not giving people "news" which they "have a right to know" (the kind of thing for which journalism needs to be protected).* But if we accept that Gawker has the right to its thing - and it does - then Gawker has to accept the consequences of pissing people off - which is usually solves through litigation insurance. If it gets sued out of existence, it's its own fault, no one else's.* Thiel did not "take down" or "punish" Gawker. A court of law punished Gawker for breaking the law. The fact that Thiel paid the defendants attorneys is irrelevant. If we have a problem with that, then we could pass laws to disallow third parties from funding other people's law suits which would have terrible consequences (no more ACLU, for example).* If the argument is that "the person with the most money wins lawsuits", I don't disagree. But that is a problem with the justice system, not Thiel.* We can't have "freedom of speech" without "freedom to sue", otherwise these entertainment "news" outlets can easily ruin the lives of people for profit (as they do).

Jun8将近 9 年前

"Later asked by an attorney for Hogan if there was a situation in which a celebrity sex tape might not be newsworthy, Delaurio responded: “If they were a child.”The attorney then asked him to specify: a child under what age? Daulerio responded: “Four.”"This was the Gawker editor who came up with the sex tape and story. This sums up the the anything goes interpretation of free speech these people have. (Although he later said he was being flippant, that's even worse in exposing his infantile psychology).OTOH, Thiel's ruthless use of the suing machine also leaves a bitter taste. This is a case where it's hard to totally root for either side.

评论 #11791518 未加载

评论 #11791582 未加载

评论 #11791546 未加载

gh-lfneu28将近 9 年前

From the article: "Historically, news publications have treated certain subjects very carefully: if you’re rich and [...] litigious, then [...] organizations will have lawyers do a careful review of anything they write about you [...]"Well, if they would now have to "do a careful review" of everything they write for the fear of vengeful billionaire going after them, nobody would shed a tear.But obviously that wont be a solution.

评论 #11791521 未加载

CM30将近 9 年前

I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't like by funding any possible lawsuit against them.But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn't have the right to post this content and didn't care that the courts found against them.And when you consider that millionaires and billionaires often own media outlets as well, that can be worrying as well. What about a Murdoch esque figure trying to push their own views on society (and discredit opponents) through their newspapers and publications?What Thiel did here is potentially worrying, but so are the other possibilities from the media site.

评论 #11791593 未加载

评论 #11791716 未加载

评论 #11791644 未加载

评论 #11791517 未加载

PeterisP将近 9 年前

So the point of the article is complaining that instead of reviewing if publishing some dirt about a few billionaires is within the legal boundaries, Gawker and others might have to do the same if they want to simply throw some dirt about ordinary plebeians as well? (Unpossible! Why would they deserve that?)And that their plan to continue performing illegal actions because, well, they have bought insurance and can settle their claims with their money has been foiled - well, what has happened to the concept why these laws were made in the first place, that such claims should be an effective deterrent to actually change their behavior?Gawker made their own bed there. Actions that result in such behavior becoming impractical not only for Gawker, but also for all other publications are (contrary to the OP viewpoint) not only permissible, but even necessary.

idot将近 9 年前

Such as a terrible article. Trying to paint Gawker as David. Gawker needs to be shut down, I hope Thiel never stops funding.

hokkos将近 9 年前

Because you need a team of lawyers to know that you shouldn't leak a sextape on your site? Thiel didn't need a team of lawyers to scrutinize every article too, the sextape case was big enough he could know it by himself. The press shouldn't have a free pass to publish every salacious article, and should face the consequences of its actions. Great to see the press establishment defending its cast with such fallacious arguments.

Kristine1975将近 9 年前

>Gawker is a fast-moving site; it can’t (and doesn’t) carefully lawyer every single thing it publishes.Maybe it should move slower then. And report, you know, responsibly.

评论 #11791510 未加载

brudgers将近 9 年前

Related opinion on the legal aspect of funding the legal fees of other people: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/26/peter-thiels-funding-of-hulk-hogan-gawker-litigation-should-not-raise-concerns/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...</a>Like most things in adversarial law, it looks to me like an atom-blaster that can point both ways.

zekevermillion将近 9 年前

Philanthropy = funding projects to make the world a better place, without making a financial profit. This legal campaign is clearly philanthropic, whether or not you like the outcome.

vixen99将近 9 年前

'The news that (Peter Thiel) just gave the world a master class in how a billionaire can achieve enormous ends with a relatively modest investment'Off topic but this case is nothing compared to the master class run by Geoge Soros in showing how a billionaire can pervert democracy by funding massive social engineering in all the countries of the European Union.As Viktor Orban has said "George Soros has published a comprehensive six-point plan promoting the movement of migrants into Europe, in which he has declared that at least one million Muslims should be let into Europe every year. According to this they must be given safe passage, and Europe should be pleased to receive such an opportunity, rather than try to resist it. He also said that this will cost a lot of money, and he will provide the credit needed".