Gizmodo used to be owned by Gawker which went bankrupt due to a lawsuit brought on because they didn't care about a famous person's privacy. So this seems par for the course.
Public figure, because Courts have ruled that billionaires are public figures due to their "outsized influence on government and public policy".
Outed by Gawker, despite his social media at the time regularly featuring photos of him shirtless on gay cruises. Good for him, but "outed" was a bit of a stretch.
I have many issues, not with Hogan's lawsuit, but Thiel's bankrolling of it:
Hogan had already reached a tentative deal with Gawker, including a percentage of profits and partial ownership.
When Thiel's paying the bills, and some of attorneys are in his full-time employ, whose interests are actually primary in their mind, versus whose should be?
After his lawyers became involved, Hogan then asked for 5,000 times more, including damages that are pretty hard to account for:
Economic losses (financial loss, to be clear, NOT "emotional distreess", which they asked for separately) of $50M due to the damage of the videos release being publicized (because Gawker didn't release it, someone else did, and Hogan had settled with them for 1/1000th of what he wanted from Gawker)...
Hogan's career earnings were $15M, and his net worth at its highest was $30M, and at the time of the lawsuit, $8M. Wrestlemania would typically pay about $150K. Obviously Hogan has endorsements, but I would love to see how the fifty million number was arrived at... endorsements for hair products, and WWF reruns?
The reason I asked about lawyers and motives, because after all this was settled, Hogan/Thiel's lawyers told him to drop just one of the claims, specifically the one that would have had Gawker's insurance pay out...
... in other words, having had a deal for part ownership of the company, Hogan threw that away and asked for far more in questionable damages, and then when awarded them, then dropped the only claim that would actually have allowed him to see any real portion of those damages.
I wonder how much Thiel paid Hogan under the table. And I thought a tenet of law / justice was being able to face your accuser, not to have them launch/finance puppet lawsuits against you.
Which is how you have Hulk Hogan involved in Trump rallies.
It all goes back to Gawker...
Gawker fucked up, and had a history of fucking up in this exact way, without being held accountable. I think they absolutely deserved to get shut down.
Did Thiel take advantage of the situation for the purposes of revenge? Most likely! But at the end of the day, Gawker abused their position and paid the price.
I feel no regret that Gawker is gone. They were a piece of shit tabloid.
I have no issue with Hogan winning: "I have many issues, not with Hogan's lawsuit, but Thiel's bankrolling of it".
Thiel's lawyers seem to have talked him out of it, and in the process, talked him into withdrawing the only claim that would have gotten him the damages he sought.
Either Hogan was paid "under the table" by Thiel, which goes to my point of "facing your accuser", because you're "throwing away" a positive result for someone else's idea of a positive result, or...
Thiel and his lawyers screwed over Hogan, promoting an outcome that was more what Thiel wanted than Hogan.
But for clarity: Fuck Gawker - the world is not poorer for their loss. I just think there's several ethical questions without answers in this instance.
What makes this case different?
How is that not a victory compared to after? "A fraction of the damages, in bankruptcy" doesn't seem quite comparable.
[E] Put differently: if I were in Hogan's shoes, and was offered the choice between destroying a shitty publication that went out of their way to expose my personal life in an extremely embarrassing and entirely _not_ newsworthy way; or profiting off that same publication's continued existence? I would absolutely choose the former, because the publication's business model is the problem. Making money off the publication would be _morally_ wrong for me, once given the option of pursuing the destruction of the publication.