What exactly is the difference between "bankroll personal vendettas" and "fight against what you believe is bad"? The latter has to be broke and the former isn't?
What this lawsuit says is, "say something about a rich person that they don't like (even if it's perfectly legal or maybe even in the public's best interest to know), and they'll fund covert lawsuits against you to destroy your entire business." That's not a world I want to live in, regardless of what I think of Gawker (they're the internet equivalent of The National Enquirer in my eyes.)
We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."
https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan...
If not, why not?
If he was suing The National Enquirer for publishing a sex tape and not gawker would we really still be discussing this?
EG: A more legitimate media outlet runs some investigative reporting that exposes legitimate wrongdoing of company run by billionaire. Billionaire responds by funding tons of frivolous lawsuits in attempt to bankrupt / silence the media outlet.
The way the justice system in too many countries works these days, it's possible that if the outlet doesn't have deep pockets, they're in trouble.
This scenario is not out of the question. One past example that comes to mind immediately is Silvio Berlusconi, who was really fond of the libel lawsuit to quell any little bit of criticism.
Now, I personally have no problems with the Gawker outcome, but I can also see the reason for concern behind Thiel's methodologies.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
Suppose SPLC filed other lawsuits (besides the winning one) against Aryan Nations, not all of which were successful. Would you be similarly concerned?
Money="justice" is a problem, I think you'll agree. This is the red flag that I think many people are raising, not because of this particular case, but because of the potential of abuse of justice that such a scenario would allow.
On the other hand, the outcome of this case could've been exactly the same even without Thiel's money. So maybe people are being too overly concerned about this angle.
I'm not really interested in loose-fitting analogies. Gawker didn't hire someone that shot at and kidnapped anyone. Let's rephrase it as a direct equivalence: let's say AN had a website where they outed Thiel, and then posted a sex tape of someone else. Then yes, I would feel the same way as I do now. My level of contempt for the defendent has no bearing on my concern over Thiel's actions.
That would be very dangerous thinking as well, to have different sets of ethics depending upon who the defendants are. One of these days, it may be a website you support revealing embarrassing yet truthful information about someone wealthy (and maybe you think it's justified because of this person's actions), and you'll end up with someone you despise using their vast wealth to bankroll lawsuits.
That said, I would like to see the cost of justice go way down. People are correct, you shouldn't need to be a billionaire to sue. And honestly, I don't think you'd have to be. I'm quite sure Bollea could have funded this lawsuit himself. Gawker isn't Oracle or Google with seven-figure lawyers on retainer. If Gawker really did break the law, and so far the first jury verdict suggests they did, then they should be punished, certainly.
I just don't like a system where the rich can scare journalists (a term I do not consider applicable to Gawker writers), and the poor don't have access to the same justice that they do.
I stand by the analogy. And yes, I'm asking if you oppose SPLC the same way you oppose Thiel.
I actually do oppose Thiel here (though not the SPLC) since I'm opposed to revenge porn laws. However I'd support Thiel if he were targeting Gawker for something I think should be illegal. But I'm asking because very few of Thiel's critics seem willing to actually bite that bullet.
(Incidentally, I was opposed to actions like this way back when the victims were completely sympathetic innocent females and the perpetrators were giant jerky perverts too. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moo... )
May this be the one time I use this phrase
Check your bloody privilege. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Seriously?
In the real world which you, and, I and every person here HAS to operate - slippery slopes will exist because there are many local optima we HAVE to work with.
Here is one YOU have to work with. Your last name is STUCCHIO! Last I checked it is ITALIAN, via SICILY!
Which means the image in this article is totally relevant to you
http://www.seidawriter.tk/white-girl-talks-about-race/
http://seidawriter.tk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Italian-300...
Or the fact the writer is of the same background as you, and brings up that one of the largest mass lynchings was of Sicilians, in New Orleans, 1891.
Or how about this notice from the 1930s, asking Italians, Germans, and Japanese to register:
https://graphicandmaybe.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/notice.j...
So the Germans and Italians were just white enough in the US to avoid Internment Camps in the US?
Do you want to go back to that era so badly with your last name?
Meanwhile, the SPLC took in about $3.75 million in donations in 2015 - most of which was not through grants and not through funds - those are labeled differently in their audited statement here https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc-fs-10-31-... (the "wealthy" donors you talk of are almost always giving investments and many of those gifts have restrictions SPLC cannot go willy-nilly file lawsuits)
And do you want to know why they got the money?
https://mic.com/articles/145105/coincidence-detector-the-goo...
(and other people who are "anti-white"/not white enough)
So while you are now white enough to get any job you want, including mathematician, barber, miner, engineer, whathaveyou, and you have the luxury of having the first name of Christian, these people don't. And there are plenty of people here with first/last names that appear here, or variant spellings - and they may not even be Jewish.
https://gitlab.com/therightstuff/public/blob/30118b9db78fd87...
That's why people donate to them. People want to know they can walk around apply for a job, and speak freely, without worrying that their name, or the color of their skin, of who they love will cause them harm. Now what they said (which you complain about), Or if they are logically consistent enough.
Get over yourself and your need for everyone to be logically consistent 100% of the time. Unless you are ready to stand up and say you ant to go back to a world where it is ok for people to discriminate against you with no one who care out there on the basis of you being Italian.
In the real world, the Streisand Effect comes into play.
Thiel is killing gawker via a meritorious lawsuit. I don't see whats problematic about that. If he was throwing frivilous lawsuits at I might agree, but that it isn't the case.
If anything, isn't what Thiel is doing a positive good? We had a victim who didn't have the funds to bankroll his own case, Thiel stepped into do so. Gawker is only in this position because they violated people's rights.
What this lawsuit says is "Say something about rich people they don't like, and they will start funding lawsuits from people you victimize."
If anything, the problem here is that the victims of Gawker need the support of the ridiculously wealthy to take them down.
Maybe, but I can't say it's bad behavior, either.
"What this lawsuit says is, "say something about a rich person that they don't like (even if it's perfectly legal or maybe even in the public's best interest to know), and they'll fund covert lawsuits against you to destroy your entire business.""
You're gonna have to point out what, if anything, the public's interest is in knowing that Peter Thiel was gay, or that Hogan made a sex tape.
"We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right.""
Yeah, but when we're children, the world is pretty black and white. As adults, things tend to be gray.
the lesson the media are going to take away from this is not "we must behave morally", but rather, "we must be careful not to get any rich guy pissed at us". which is where these arguments about how Mr Thiel is hurting the freedom of the press are coming from.