Hacker News Reader

Comment by RankingMember | Hacker News Reader

So Peter's basically choke-slamming Gawker because they outed him as gay earlier on. I'm conflicted because I think Gawker is a click-bait cesspool, but at the same time feel uncomfortable with someone else's desire for vengeance fueling a legal offensive.

View on HN

He's doing what most people would do if they had money to burn. Not saying it's good, but I think that's true. How many times have you heard "I'll f*cking sue you!" as an impotent threat? I like to half-jokingly say that my definition of wealthy is when someone can refer to "my attorney" and not be bluffing.

You might be more understanding if you had a preference that was still somewhat taboo (yet ultimately harmless) and expected the simple human courtesy of being able to announce it on your own terms.

Even though I'm a Kinsey Zero, as a privacy advocate, I'm very happy that powerful, good people of a historically-beleaguered orientation (Tim Cook, etc.) have become forces to be reckoned with on the privacy front.

Forcefully outing people is not news, it is harm.

I don't have any issue with vengeance fueling a legal offensive. I also think that Gawker crossed a very real line when they outed him in 2007. What concerns me is one billionaire can bring down and effectively silence a media outlet quietly from behind the scenes.

I'm not sure I would consider this him taking them down. The case has nothing to do with him beyond his money, and without the case his money wouldn't be doing anything here, so it's the case that's doing the work. He's just supporting it.

As a result of the size of the legal team's war chest they've removed language that would allow Gawker's insurers to pay any damages. This will hold Gawker liable and Gawker probably can't afford to bleed $140M without going under.

> As a result of the size of the legal team's war chest

I'm not sure what that has to do with it.

That struck many legal observers as odd, given that most lawyers seeking large payouts want to include claims that are insured against because doing so increases the chances of a settlement.

Lawyers seek large payouts? Isn't it the plaintiff that calls the shots? Hulk Hogan is already a millionaire (but not to the degree of the payout in this case), so it may not just be Peter Thiel that wanted Gawker to hurt. Some fairly damaging stuff about Hogan has surfaced because of the trial, which, surprise, was covered by Gawker[1] (and without a disclosure regarding the lawsuit until a later update).

1: http://gawker.com/hulk-hogan-refers-to-fucking-niggers-in-le...

If Gawker could settle and have their insurance company take the hit then Gawker itself would remain relatively unscathed. By preventing the insurance company from paying out, Hogan/Thiel have made it more difficult to win their case and more difficult to collect to monetary award. Also - by not settling Hogan's legal bills increase as the battle rages on. Gawker can outspend Hogan, but Gawker can't outspend Thiel.

Can Gawker outspend Hogan? He's reported to have $25 million. If Gawker can't take a hit of $140 million and survive, how much can they afford?

In the end, I don't think it really matters. If you did stuff your insurance doesn't cover and get sued for it, that's your fault. You don't get to decide how the other side responds. If your business model relies on this behavior, you should really be keeping this in mind. (These are generalizations. I'm not sure what Gawker is guilty of, if anything, and what their business model really consists of).

How does the fuel matter? The case has legal merit or it doesn't. If you are assessing worth based on who is funding it, then you are looking at it the wrong way.

There is an exception to that where the playing field is so uneven that a small entity would be bankrupted just by trying to get to a legal result in their favour. I don't mean to suggest that applies here, though.

That's a very naive and optimistic assessment of how our adversarial legal system works. The $$$ you bring to bear on a case matters just as much as the legal merit. Poor folks are put in jail because their overworked public defender was sleeping when they should have objected. A billion dollar company can bury a mom and pop shop with patent litigation, etc.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. The original commenter expressed that they "feel uncomfortable with someone else's desire for vengeance fueling a legal offensive." If the legal offensive has merit, why does it matter who is behind it?

It's one thing to express discomfort that someone if funding a frivolous lawsuit, but without some opinion on the merit of the case, I'm not sure how the involvement of money should be seen as a good thing or a bad thing.

It's only really concerning if you're looking to apply very broad principles to it. If you look at the full circumstances (what Gawker do, what they did to Peter, what they did to Hulk) then I think it becomes a bit easier to swallow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com