Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahoy | Hacker News Reader

cool legal system we have where you can literally pay to win

What Gawker did to Hulk Hogan was illegal and unethical. And when they were told to take the video down by a judge they refused to do so. Gawker lost because they were in the wrong and were destroyed because they refused to just take the L

Its OK the celebrate the ends while also criticizing the morality of the means

My remark was more about how often this case is trotted out as setting a concerning precedent. Gawker basically acted like jackasses and blew their own leg off, and Thiel was just there to make sure they didn't miss. It's hard for me to see that as setting a morally troubling precedent, and it doesn't fit neatly into the narrative of "Billionaire uses money to destroy enemies" unless you omit most of the relevant details. Presumably they could have avoided the entire situation by not being shady and breaking the law. And the rich having better access to legal representation is not something that was changed in any way with regards to this case.

I took it differently: it's an indictment of a system in which a person without Thiel's means is much less likely to obtain justice.

What happened to freedom of the press?

Freedom of the press does not give you a free pass to violate people's right to privacy.

The press doesn't have the freedom to blackmail and do illegal biddings for powerful people, and destroy lives when lives aren't newsworthy.

Unless you post pro-Trump memes critical of CNN to Reddit, in which case CNN knows where you live, and whether or not CNN decides to publish that information depends very much on whether you apologize for your hateful stunt like a good boy.

Freedom of the Press does not allow for breaking the law and _especially_ does not allow them to disobey a court order after their illegal activities are litigated (and, especially _especially_ does not allow them to flaunt that disobedience in the public). What Gawker did was not protected by the first amendment, nor should it be.

That being said, I also don't believe what Thiel did was ethical or just. It's a scary prospect.

Maybe reality is a bit more nuanced than “the press can publish anything without consequences.”

Any reasonable person understands that freedom hits limits when it unjustly impinges on other people's freedoms.

Can you name an instance where a person or body is entitled to completely unfettered freedom, regardless of harmful external consequences?

The Golden Rule is one of the most ancient and foundational principles we have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

gawker deserved everything it happened and more. https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1444591425984.jpg

But the indictment (pun intended) of the legal system is that it took a billionaire's $10 million to see that justice was done.

Gawker's insurance was going to bat for them, and would have likely reached settlement. What Thiel's team did was help Hogan's lawyers deliberately construct their suit in such a way, even scale it back if I understand correctly, that if found liable, would not have fall within Gawker's insurance policy.[0] Faced with the prospect of a huge uncovered loss, Gawker crumpled like a cheap suit. Paid to win? I doubt it. Hogan was up against a team seasoned pros, and was just lucky to have an enemy of his enemy. Much respect to Thiel for sticking to principle.

[0] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gawkers-insurer-lo...

Bezos is Bezos. What principle did Thiel who is not Hogan stick to?

That still feels off to me. Thiel didn't go to court to argue for Gawker to be shut down, he argued something different knowing that the financial implications (that they'd specifically targeted) meant it would be shut down. Still feels like an incredible exercise of rich guy power.

It's unfortunate that not everybody has this power. But since we can't change that, it's fortunate that at least some random rich guy has this power. (Random in the sense that he's not royalty/political dynasty, but literally anyone lucky enough to have become rich in capitalism.)

Yeah, it sucks, but it says more about individuals WITHOUT funding and their complete lack of efficacy. Once any individual with any potentially legitimate complaint is given the resources to fight back, it becomes a much fairer battleground.

In fact, I would argue that these billionaires funding lawsuits like Hulk Hogan's actually allow the average person a higher success chance. Its pragmatism in the face of a ridiculously slanted justice system.

> cool legal system we have where you can literally pay to win

No, because he is not rewriting any laws. The laws are already on his side.

There is a deeper issue where parties without adequate resources may be provided ineffective representation.

The US legal system may have its flaws, but you should really see how the legal systems in some 3rd world countries operate. Those can be literally pay to win.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com