5 ms·

To clarify, you are ok with billionaires having the ability to use the legal system to destroy any organization they personally dislike?

SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
Are you saying the court ruling (in the Hulk Hogan vs Gawker case, that Theil financially supported) was unjust, or compromised somehow, because of his involvement?
- powowow 7y ago
  I can't help but laugh that a guy who calls himself 'Smirking Revenge' is a stan for Peter Thiel's revenge by proxy lawsuit. If you were a fictional character, I'd think the author was being a bit heavy-handed with your aptronym.
throwaway_tech 7y ago
I think you unfairly are blaming the "billionaires" here and failing to acknowledge the organization bankrupted themselves by violating the law. They didn't have to violate the law and expose themselves to a lawsuit for damages. Even then, they didn't have to spend themselves into bankruptcy fighting the lawsuit. They could have saved all the legal costs and accepted a judgement. Of course they could have not violated the law and avoided the lawsuit altogether. It seems to make sense the person who was damaged by the organization personally dislikes them, but that has nothing to do with the company going bankrupt, their own behavior is what lead to them going bankrupt.
- powowow 7y ago
  Cool. Did you know that Peter Thiel, in his own words, decided to "create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to _find_ causes of action against Gawker", and to then give it a starting timeline and budget of "three to five years and $10 million"?
  - throwaway_tech 7y ago
    >"create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to _find_ causes of action against Gawker" Cool. As I said, you can point the finger at the "Billionaire" but at the end of the day Gwaker's is liable for their unlawful behavior resulting in damages, that can't be blamed on Thiel. A Jury found Gwaker liable and awarded Hogan $140M, that bankrupted Gawker, not Thiel. If Gawker didn't willfully publish stolen sex tapes of Hulk Hogan in violation of his rights, then Thiel would have wasted $10M and 3-5 years looking for something that doesn't exist, and they would still be in business.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - powowow 7y ago
      Yah good point. Most small businesses would suffer no harm at all from an adversary with an initial $10MM allocated toward an attack. After all, most businesses have no employees who have ever done anything even remotely questionable. And besides, it's super cheap and easy to win in court if truth and justice are on your side. (and the same in print; there's no way to for an investigative journalist to create disproportionately bad press) You're definitely correct, right, and very smart. I agree with all of your points.
      - throwaway_tech 7y ago
        I'm sorry you don't understand how civil lawsuits work. It would probably help you immensely to learn at least the basics before forming opinions though. >And besides, it's super cheap and easy to win in court if truth and justice are on your side. Well if Hogan's lawsuit was frivolous and without merit, then Gawker would have actually had all its fees/costs paid for. However, as you know that isn't remotely close to reality, the case went to trial (which less than 10% do) and the Jury found Gawker liable and not just for $115M in damages but $25 in punitive damages...that is special damages designed to punish Gawker for their behavior. Tell yourself all you want Thiel is responsible. No one forced Gawker to fight an obviously losing case, they did so at their own peril and incurred additional unnecessary fees doing so...they have no one to blame but themselves. They could have just accepted a judgment and gone straight to calculating damages. Your position is effectively no different than blaming police and prosecutors for arresting/convicting a murder because they are well funded. Somehow you gloss over the fact that the murderer is culpable for their illegal act, and wouldn't be in prison if they didn't commit murder.
coldtea 7y ago
If the organization has done shitty things, like posting a private sex tape, or outing someone as gay, then yes. They thought they could stomp on people with impunity because nobody would care / have the money to take them to court for doing so. They thought wrong.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

SmirkingRevenge 7y ago

Are you saying the court ruling (in the Hulk Hogan vs Gawker case, that Theil financially supported) was unjust, or compromised somehow, because of his involvement?

powowow 7y ago
I can't help but laugh that a guy who calls himself 'Smirking Revenge' is a stan for Peter Thiel's revenge by proxy lawsuit. If you were a fictional character, I'd think the author was being a bit heavy-handed with your aptronym.

throwaway_tech 7y ago

I think you unfairly are blaming the "billionaires" here and failing to acknowledge the organization bankrupted themselves by violating the law. They didn't have to violate the law and expose themselves to a lawsuit for damages. Even then, they didn't have to spend themselves into bankruptcy fighting the lawsuit. They could have saved all the legal costs and accepted a judgement. Of course they could have not violated the law and avoided the lawsuit altogether. It seems to make sense the person who was damaged by the organization personally dislikes them, but that has nothing to do with the company going bankrupt, their own behavior is what lead to them going bankrupt.

powowow 7y ago
Cool. Did you know that Peter Thiel, in his own words, decided to "create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to _find_ causes of action against Gawker", and to then give it a starting timeline and budget of "three to five years and $10 million"?
- throwaway_tech 7y ago
  >"create a shell company to hire former investigative reporters and lawyers to _find_ causes of action against Gawker" Cool. As I said, you can point the finger at the "Billionaire" but at the end of the day Gwaker's is liable for their unlawful behavior resulting in damages, that can't be blamed on Thiel. A Jury found Gwaker liable and awarded Hogan $140M, that bankrupted Gawker, not Thiel. If Gawker didn't willfully publish stolen sex tapes of Hulk Hogan in violation of his rights, then Thiel would have wasted $10M and 3-5 years looking for something that doesn't exist, and they would still be in business.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - powowow 7y ago
    Yah good point. Most small businesses would suffer no harm at all from an adversary with an initial $10MM allocated toward an attack. After all, most businesses have no employees who have ever done anything even remotely questionable. And besides, it's super cheap and easy to win in court if truth and justice are on your side. (and the same in print; there's no way to for an investigative journalist to create disproportionately bad press) You're definitely correct, right, and very smart. I agree with all of your points.
    - throwaway_tech 7y ago
      I'm sorry you don't understand how civil lawsuits work. It would probably help you immensely to learn at least the basics before forming opinions though. >And besides, it's super cheap and easy to win in court if truth and justice are on your side. Well if Hogan's lawsuit was frivolous and without merit, then Gawker would have actually had all its fees/costs paid for. However, as you know that isn't remotely close to reality, the case went to trial (which less than 10% do) and the Jury found Gawker liable and not just for $115M in damages but $25 in punitive damages...that is special damages designed to punish Gawker for their behavior. Tell yourself all you want Thiel is responsible. No one forced Gawker to fight an obviously losing case, they did so at their own peril and incurred additional unnecessary fees doing so...they have no one to blame but themselves. They could have just accepted a judgment and gone straight to calculating damages. Your position is effectively no different than blaming police and prosecutors for arresting/convicting a murder because they are well funded. Somehow you gloss over the fact that the murderer is culpable for their illegal act, and wouldn't be in prison if they didn't commit murder.

coldtea 7y ago

If the organization has done shitty things, like posting a private sex tape, or outing someone as gay, then yes. They thought they could stomp on people with impunity because nobody would care / have the money to take them to court for doing so. They thought wrong.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]