It's a bit scary to have someone attempt to take down a publishing company just because of a long-held grudge.
That's a template for private censorship by the rich.
A media company operating with integrity has nothing to fear here.
I've read exactly two articles re: Thiel vs. Gawker, but....isn't that exactly what's happening? I don't see Gawker's "wrongness" as entirely relevant to the fact that Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation in the hundreds (edit: tens) of millions of dollars-just to see Gawker go away.
I absolutely loathe Gawker Media, I loathe this even more.
> That and a series of articles about his friends and others that he said “ruined people’s lives for no reason” drove Mr. Thiel to mount a clandestine war against Gawker. He funded a team of lawyers to find and help “victims” of the company’s coverage mount cases against Gawker. [1]
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
The quoted number is 10 million http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter...
It is directly related...If Gawker was not guilty of committing a tort that resulted in actual damages, then Thiel or anyone else would not be financing litigation against Gawker.
>Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation in the hundreds of millions of dollars-just to see Gawker go away.
Who gives a shit and why? Is it just because Thiel has a personal issue with Gawker? If Bollea couldn't afford the litigation legally he could use credit, take a bank loan, have family loan him money...legally, he is allowed to sell portions of any potential damages he may/may not be awarded to finance the litigation. What is a better alternative? Certainly we don't want to limit litigants financing to what they can afford out of pocket.
And its not like Thiel or any other financier is allowed to have any influence on the independence of the client's lawyer, so its not like Thiel can prevent Bollea from settling if the amount is agreeable to the client.
Finally, there are mechanisms that Gawker had at its disposal it didn't use that they could have to stop the bleeding. They could have offered Bollea a settlement and avoided litigation, and even if Thiel unduly influenced Bollea to keep the litigation to bleed Gawker, they could have file a Proposal for Settlement above the actual damages and when the judgment comes back under the proposed settlement amount, then Bollea would actually be responsible for Gawkers lawyer's fees (i.e. they would be net + on the litigation even though they lost).
You know, I'll never understand the immediate and swift "who cares" response when people are discussing a subject as some sort of "Excuse me but...". If there's a disagreement you wish to voice, voice it-let's not act like people aren't interested in it because of your disagreement.
And as I've said, I've only read two articles on this whole thing and the entire ordeal seems sordid to me. I'm not a lawyer, so I wont even begin to pretend like I know what someone should or should not have done in the interests of their own defense, but the "backroom dealer" feel of the whole thing-personally speaking-reeks and doesn't quite sit well with me. I don't have all the answers to this, and I do plan to get more informed.
And further, yes-I suppose if one were to argue using that Obi Wan "from a certain point of view" type of analysis-Gawker's wrongness is Germane so maybe this even falls to me to be more precise in my speaking:
Gawker being in the wrong or Gawker being in the right doesn't change much of the strange sensation I feel when someone ostensibly brings sacks of money to the table in a lawsuit with the intent to win not on the merits of the case but by exhausting legal resources of their legal opponent.
Sorry Dave, not how I meant it. You stated a fact (Thiel spent a lot of money on the litigation), so its not like I disagree. And my "Who gives a shit", is not a dismissive "who cares", but an honest probing question: who is behind raising Thiel's financing as an issue. I back it up with legitimate instances of litigation financing no one else would care about (credit cards, loans, family, etc...). In other words the forces behind these disparaging articles about the concept of litigation financing is the result of the very same backroom deals and undue influence that is raised by the articles themselves (its pretty brilliant really). Yes, that last part is pure opinion.
Further, I highlighted the actual legal mechanisms Gawker had to mitigate its legal costs. This is mostly because I think a major argument against Thiel financing is that he unnecessarily bleed Gawker, the counter is they bleed themselves by not settling.
>with the intent to win not on the merits of the case but by exhausting legal resources of their legal opponent.
9 out of 10 cases settle, this case actually went to a judgment at trial, that is the very definition of winning a case on the merits. Its almost insanity that Gawker didn't settle it knowing they would be hit with punitive damages is found liable. Not to say you are part of the HN status quo, but HN takes a strong stance against settlements/pleas and this case epitomizes the concept of winning/losing on the merits. (For the record I am a strong advocate of both settlement and pleas)
What's your evidence for this? Plenty of people pay for litigation that doesn't result in actual damages. That's why over the last few decades we have needed to invent anti-SLAPP statues. Which, by the way, we only have in 28 states, so reduction of First Amendment rights via lawsuit is still a big threat to free speech.
> its not like Thiel can prevent Bollea from settling if the amount is agreeable to the client.
Do you have evidence for this? Bollea presumably signed some sort of agreement when taking Thiel's funding, and I'm not seeing why he wouldn't be able to agree not to settle. And certainly Thiel could have structure the funding such that Bollea's incentive to settle was gone. E.g., fundig for up to $50m, but regardless of amount spent, Thiel gets anything from Gawker up to $50m.
> They could have offered Bollea a settlement and avoided litigation
What's your evidence that they didn't? Legal observers think "Gawker must have offered to pay significant damages":
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/might-an-anti-gawker-benefac...
For starters they took this case to verdict and won thats good evidence for the types of case Thiel backs. But assuming Thiel was financing another case that ultimately lost. If Thiel's goal is to hurt Gawker you don't finance bad law suits or you will have the unintentional goal of actually rewarding Gawker who can win its legal fees and sanctions (plus additional proof of bad-faith litigation in the future). Damages are a standard in the pleading and if no damages are plead, like you suggest, then the suit will be dismissed on Motion for failing to state a cause of action in which relief can be granted. Don't get me wrong there are bizarre cases like Donald Trump suing NFL on behalf of AFL on anti-trust, the Court finding the NFL does engage in unconstitutional anti-competitive behavior but awarded him damages of only $1.
>Do you have evidence for this?
The law firm knows far better than Bollea or Thiel what the the likelihood of winning a case at trial are and its potential worth (damages is a issue separate and apart from liability). Bollea is not going to make a deal unilaterally with Thiel without the advice of his counsel, and they won't give him advice against his own interests(or they can be liable for malpractice and disbarred) and trust me I have had plenty of cases where my Client refused to accept settlement agreements that were more than fair and I usually withdraw as attorney of record (fire the client).
>What's your evidence that they didn't?
The case went to trial in Florida, here in Florida we have a Rule: proposal for settlement. Its like a bet. Basically, if you are the defendant at some point when it is clear (depends on the case, sometime before but sometimes after discovery) your lawyer tells you what the case is worth, and suggests you make an offer to settle to avoid additional cost of litigation. Now if the other party rejects your settlement and goes to trial, if the award is less than proposed settlement then the winning party still has to pay the fees of both sides. Obviously Thiel or Bollea aren't paying Gawker's lawyer fees or thats what we would be reading about and the Court Order would be everywhere, because that would be actual proof (not good proof) of vexatious/harassing/bad-faith litigation.
It is 100% about the wrongness. If they weren't wrong, they would not have been sentenced to pay $140M.
Until they do? Gawker is very likely to win on appeal, but who is going to want to invest in Gawker knowing that a litigious billionaire has a grudge against them?
"Gawker is very likely to win on appeal"
Sounds to me like a flaw in the justice system, if one side hands out high amounts of punishment, then the appeal system systematically reduces the payment. Not something the person who sues or supports the legal action is responsible for.
It already is scary because people are taken down by the media company simply publishing lies because they can't afford to sue.
Crying on behalf of Gawker in this case is a lot like crying for the bully that's finally getting punished.
It's exactly this kind of "jackpot justice" that illustrates how bad the system is, that everyone is one sympathetic jury away from being shut down.
I can't upvote csallen's comment enough: the cost of being wrong is far too capricious. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11824026
What is your feeling on discretionary enforcement that targets a someone, or a population, because they are undesirable? If such enforcement uncovers crime (but was not motivated by crime), is it just?
Nobody cares about the beautiful stories that are published, just the ugly stories. Those ugly stories are still an important part of journalism, especially when they're ugly to people in power.
No. Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong. The courts frown on attempts to do that.
For you to do something wrong, you had to cause clearly defined harm. If you're causing harm, why shouldn't you be sued out of existence?
The injustice here isn't that the rich can eliminate bad actors ... it's that the rest of us can't!
That's absolutely incorrect. There is ample precedent of people using the civil legal system to suppress the media.
Perhaps you heard of these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_t...
Read that over. They did not have a lot of things go their way.
As far as I can tell though they successfully kept the news that they were running a financially fraudulent cult completely out of the mainstream media for decades, until the invention of the internet made that goal increasingly impossible.
We may all agree that enforcing speeding laws is a good thing, and someone who gets a ticket for it deserves the fine. But if I could fund the police department to have a car permanently follow just you around and nail you for each transgression, it turns something that is fair for each individual offense into something unfair in aggregate. Even if by doing so I was making the roads safer, and you technically deserved each fine.
I think Peter Thiel is doing something similar and even though Gawker is in the wrong in the individual case and deserves to lose, I strongly dislike being able to keep paying to throw the justice system against your enemies.
You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity.
There has always been yellow journalism. Gawker isn't new. What is new is that this is the first time an establishment like that got a bloody nose. Usually they're the ones using the legal system to silence those they abuse.
I don't think if it's government or individual it changes the inherent unfairness of having someone decide to watch you, and just you, for any sign of a slip up and then getting you punished based on it. Heck, I think most siblings understand this kind of unfairness with uneven parental justice.
> You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity.
There's an order of magnitude difference between the net worth of Thiel and Gawker as a whole. And that's on a good day for Gawker.
Why? This is simply how the world works.
It doesn't have to be the justice system.
If the courts rule against you, and we believe the courts are just, then it shouldn't matter how the process was financed, or whose interests were involved.
Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP.
Your argument is poorly thought out.
>Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP.
I think it's worth differentiating cases with merit from cases where there has actually been a clear judgement against the defendant. I have a hard time calling the second class unethical, regardless of the motivation.
Had Gawker won the case in federal court, as it was expected to and likely would have, or if they win on appeal, suddenly Thiel's actions become unethical? This hardly sounds like a well-thought out ethical system, but it seems like people only care about a free press or free speech depending on whose ox is getting gored.
It's convenient, too, that a ruling against the people you disagree with is considered just, but you'll withhold judgment if it's overturned.