Hacker News Reader

> So if this were anyone else with any other media organization, I would totally be on their side and agree that this is a travesty of justice that Theil was able to fund this lawsuit.

There are two different things here, and I'm not sure I understand all the issues.

1. The personal vendetta. I understand this. (At least, probably)

2. The posting -- without permission -- of a sex tape made without Hogan's knowledge and in a private location. This seems morally indefensible to me. This is where I get a bit lost as to people defending Gawker. Shouldn't posting such a video be illegal?

> The posting -- without permission -- of a sex tape made without Hogan's knowledge and in a private location. This seems morally indefensible to me. This is where I get a bit lost as to people defending Gawker. Shouldn't posting such a video be illegal?

Yes, probably. The issue stems from the fact that someone else paid for the lawsuit, which is a moral gray area, and in fact was illegal for a long time, even before the US existed (in British common law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

>and in fact was illegal for a long time

Yeah, no. NYTimes v. Sullivan determined that public figures sacrifice a good deal of their privacy when they when they enter the public sphere. For instance, the same such video of, say, a governor would certainly be newsworthy. Where it's unclear is to what degree is Hogan a public figure and whether the actual publishing of it, as opposed to just reporting on it, is constitutes newsworthiness.

In terms of lawsuit financing, it's perfectly legal. There's an entire industry devoted to third-party lawsuit financing – otherwise, poor victims of car attacks (or other consequences which injured their ability to work and earn) wouldn't be able to pursue personal injury claims.

Without it, only those with means could pursue legal recourse.

I was saying that funding other people's lawsuits was illegal for a long time.

My mistake, I misread. I edited my post to address this.

then you should also be against ACLU as well

You're right I should. I guess I give them a pass because they aren't motivated by personal vendetta.

" I was personally harmed by them when they decided to make their hobby doxxing controversial reddit users"

That would be violentacrez, right?

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/what-w...

No, it was other people who I had to help after they were doxxed, but he was also seriously harmed by Gawker.

> Even if they are reporting something that isn't libelous, they will always fear in the back of their mind that a wealthy person who doesn't like them will bring a case against them that will bankrupt them, even if what they wrote was legit, just through having to defend themselves.

So I keep reading this argument but am having a hard time accepting it because it's acting like Thiel is somehow the first person to think of something like this. If you think this will become widespread as a result of Thiel's actions, why is it not widespread already? You could make the argument that media outlets (or really anyone) were just never made aware of who was actually financing lawsuits but I'm more than certain that if it was widespread that someone would have looked into it by now.

I think in part because it's well known and also because this might be the first time it's been specifically stated as a personal vendetta.

Agreed. I just think it's sad that it actually took outside financing for a millionaire to participate in our legal system.

There's a certain, perverse form of cognitive dissonance in thinking what Gawker did to Hogan was wrong, but ViolentAcrez and his posting of creepshots of underage girls was somehow unimpeachable free speech – and therefore his freedom to continue doing such ought to be protected.

Do not the girls and women whose privacy he was invading not deserve the same right to privacy?

I never said what VA was doing was right or wrong, not did I say what they did to Hogan was right or wrong.

I just said I don't feel bad because they were unethical in their journalism and caused real harm to people because of it (real people besides VA).