Are you genuinely advocating the limitless disclosure of nude images of people, with no legal recourse to prevent that?
Am I grossly misunderstanding this case?
Am I grossly misunderstanding this case?
The concern is that this is a generic strategy for destroying any media org you dislike. Simply locate and fund any and all lawsuits, forever. Any critical story could be libel. Any publishing of secrets could be an invasion of privacy. A weak case can be pumped up with enough money. Eventually the billionaire wins the war of attrition.
This is not hypothetical. Mother Jones was similarly attacked for publishing Mitt Romney's 47% comments. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander...
This is the very definition of a chilling effect on free speech!
It's also important to point out that Thiel is not manufacturing bogus cases to try and overwhelm a company with lawsuits. He's trying to find legitimate victims of Gawker and fund their lawsuits. These aren't frivolous claims, they're merely claims that the victims may not have been able to afford to file otherwise.
The post I was responding to was advocating apparently limitless free speech, though. Chilling effects SHOULD apply to certain things, and unapproved pornography of yourself maybe should be one of those?
Limitless speech but limited recourse isn't worth advocating, IMO.