Tech Billionaire Peter Thiel Secretly Bankrolled Hulk Hogan's Lawsuit Against Gawker: Reports (gawker.com) 307
If you're a powerful Silicon Valley billionaire, and there's a media house which actively points out flaws in your investments, can you do something about it? If you're Peter Thiel, you certainly can. The New York Times and Forbes magazine have independently reported that Thiel has been funding a steady stream of lawsuits -- including three different ones filed by Hulk Hogan -- to destroy Gawker Media. Gawker reports: Gawker and Valleywag, Gawker Media's defunct tech gossip vertical, have often written critically of Thiel, a self-identified libertarian (and, it turns out, a California delegate for Donald Trump) and his investments, covering the failure of his hedge fund Clarium Capital, his right-wing politics, and his personal life. In just the last month, Gawker Media's tech site Gizmodo published a series of stories on Facebook's use of "news curators" to manipulate the site's "trending" module, sparking a congressional investigation into the social network's practices.Jay Rosen, media critic and a professor of journalism at New York University, said: Trying to kill a publication you don't like by funding lawsuits against them isn't very libertarian, is it?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what's the big issue? This guy saw an opportunity to attack an opponent albeit in the shadows.
"Attack the enemy where they are not" - Art of War
Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
Press freedom is an essential element of any democracy. So pretty obviously the big issue with rich bastards using their wealth to try to shut down publications that criticise them is that it clearly works against that principle. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society where the rich felt that they could do whatever the fuck they wanted and never be called out on it by the media, because media organisations feared this kind of attack if they did so.
Re: (Score:2)
Press freedom is an essential element of any democracy. So pretty obviously the big issue with rich bastards using their wealth anonymously to try to shut down publications that criticise them is that it clearly works against that principle.
FTFY (never mind that commenter posted as AC)
Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, this relies on the Press being free enough to criticize the government, and be clever enough to realize when they government is lying to them and investigate to reveal the truth. Suing the media for lying isn't nearly the same level of problem, particularly when the media is 100% in the wrong as in the Hulk Hogan case. [nytimes.com]
The Presidency played the Press like a fiddle and they fell for it hook, line and sinker. They lied, lied, and lied some more and no reporter bothered to investigate. THAT is more destructive to democracy than a lawsuit against clear Press misconduct.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I don't think it is so much that he admitted that the media is an arm of the liberals so much as the media can be played like a fiddle by anyone with enough skill and resources.
The media's problem is that it is like those sharks that can't stop swimming and eating or they die. They need access and people to give them scoops because they will lose readership if they have nothing substantial to report. Every. Single. Day. That gives the government a lot of power over them. All that is needed is so
Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to justify the claim that publicly outing someone's sexuality or making a private sex tape available is an example of press freedom. There's no solid lemon test here, unfortunately, but certainly courts, when confronted with press freedom versus rights to privacy, there's a "public good" question that has to be asked. What good was served by releasing the Hulk Hogan video?
Re: (Score:2)
Is There A Reason You Hate Freedom? (Score:3)
A lot of people are spouting "Freedom of the Press", but really, Gawker and "Journalism" should not be used in relation to each other.
As to this asshat using his money to fight against something that bothers him? Well, it's a free country, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a filthy marxist propaganda paper that fuel racism and sexism.
And they have every right to be, as endowed by their creator and recognized by the United States government. The Bill of Rights means nothing if it only protects the people we like.
Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:5, Informative)
They had zero right to post what they did then to ignore a court order to take it down. This is not a good test case for freedom of the press. Gawker was in the wrong and got bitch slapped for it. It has nothing to do with liking them or not. They crossed the line. Freedom of speech is not absolute (citation: SCOTUS rulings over the years). They were wrong then when ordered to take the video down they thumbed their nose at the court.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
[...] "first they came for X, but I was not X, so I didn't speak out, then they came for Y, but I was not Y, so I didn't speak out, then they came for Z, and I'm Z, but there was no one left to speak out for me."
I am white AND male. Gawker would never be speaking out for me anyway.
Gwaker media is not worth saving. Let the cancer die. [google.com]
Re: The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:5, Informative)
What gawker did in the Hogan case was completely wrong, and it doesn't matter who was backing action against them, even if it was Adolf Hitler. You likewise can't validate what they did just because you don't like the prosecution.
Re: The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
In Soviet America you have all the rights you can afford to sue for!
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, back in real America, if you are in the right real people will sue for you.
Most lawyers will take a clear cut case on contingency. That means they pay until you win, deduct expenses, then grab a percentage of the judgment. There are also lawyers who will do work pro bono which means they flip the bill and don't expect compensation but for some reason feel the case is necessary. You also have lots of charities that enable both as well as some that will just pay the lawyer bill. So it certainly is
Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
The ability of the rich to try and sue someone into compliance, or at least silence, is nothing new, and is troubling on its own, but at least when they're suing directly they open themselves to discovery. Donald Trump once sued a journalist for claiming he was worth less than $250 million, but that led to him being forced to release tax documents to the court as part of it, so everyone could see what the truth actually was. This is different, because he's not even a first party to it, he's just recruiting and bankrolling people to sue them.
And while Gawker isn't exactly a pure and noble martyr that we should feel bad about, to put it mildly, the notion that someone rich enough can use the court system in this manner to destroy a news organization, even a terrible tabloid one, just because he doesn't like what it says, should scare us. It's a chilling effect that may have significant repercussions on reporting on the activities of the rich and powerful in general.
Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
>So if he decides he doesn't like you, he can sue the crap out of you on multiple fronts, without his own name getting dragged into it? You're fine with trying to fight off all those lawsuits, where you'll go bankrupt even if you win?
It's a fine tactic to use against someone who would out you as gay against your will. What Gawker's circle does is not journalism, it's character assassination based on political beliefs.
Just like the ACLU & co.? (Score:5, Insightful)
> So if he decides he doesn't like you, he can sue the crap out of you on multiple fronts, without his own name getting dragged into it? You're fine with trying to fight off all those lawsuits, where you'll go bankrupt even if you win?
How is that any different from the ACLU and similar orgs? Lots of people fund them and they go around looking to sue anyone who is doing things they don't agree with. Just to remember, this wasn't a frivolous lawsuit against Gawker--they won.
Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
This lawsuit wasn't mainly trouble for Gawker because they would go bankrupt even if they won. It was trouble for Gawker because Gawker committed the unethical behavior described in the lawsuit and had to pay for it. There's a big difference between suing innocent people to make them pay for defense, and suing guilty people to make them pay for their crimes.
Re:The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:4)
So, in short, they're not trying to make Gawker pay for their crimes, they're trying to make Gawker go bankrupt any way they can. That's a huge distinction.
Re: (Score:3)
If you read through to some of the reporting on this, you'll find that it wasn't just the Hulk Hogan lawsuit - he's arranged for many more. What's more, the lawyers in the case were pursuing tactics that wouldn't make sense if they were actually trying to maximize the award to their client, but would absolutely make sense if they were simply trying to attack Gawker without care as to whether Hogan actually gets any money out of it.
So, in short, they're not trying to make Gawker pay for their crimes, they're trying to make Gawker go bankrupt any way they can. That's a huge distinction.
I haven't really seen that and I think what you're claiming would be a fairly serious allegation against the lawyers.
The lawyers are supposed to represent the interests of their client, Hulk Hogan, if they're jeopardizing those interests to further someone else's interests I think that's a conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:3)
The New York Times has reported that
Questions about the independence of Mr. Bollea [aka Hulk Hogan], who never mentioned a third-party backer, first emerged when his lawyer removed a claim from his complaint that had the effect of eliminating Gawker’s insurance company from the case. That struck many legal observers as odd, given that most lawyers seeking large payouts want to include claims that are insured against because doing so increases the chances of a settlement.
The thinking goes that if the insurance company is not named in the suit then Gawker would have had to pay more, but the plaintiff would have won a lower settlement or would have risked losing the possibility of an out-of-court settlement. It is possible, though, that both Hulk Hogan and Paul Thiel agreed that the best outcome was the one that made Gawker pay the most, or that they were embarrassed as much as possible by a public airing. In that case, the lawyer acted in
Re: (Score:3)
This lawsuit wasn't mainly trouble for Gawker because they would go bankrupt even if they won. It was trouble for Gawker because Gawker committed the unethical behavior described in the lawsuit and had to pay for it. There's a big difference between suing innocent people to make them pay for defense, and suing guilty people to make them pay for their crimes.
There's also that awkward bit where justice is only available for the rich.
Gawker vs Thiel results in Gawker winning because Gawker is in the legal right.
Gawker vs Hogan results in Gawker winning because Hogan doesn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit.
Gawker vs Thiel+Hogan results in Gawker losing because Thiel has the resources and Hogan has the case.
I'm not sure arrangement #3 is wrong since it's the only way the little guy (Hogan) gets justice. But I think it should be public because Thiel's involve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah fuck Gawker media, they are pushing a bullshit agenda. Play it fair or don't play
http://i.imgur.com/CQ5qgvu.jpg [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's the big issue? This guy saw an opportunity to attack an opponent albeit in the shadows.
"Attack the enemy where they are not" - Art of War
Well for one, it flies in the face of Libertarian ideology that Thiel likes to promote, that government power used against private individuals and businesses is the root of much of the evil in our society. It seems like he's more of an Objectivist, where any means are acceptable as long as you're the one who comes ahead.
Re: (Score:3)
Thiel, a self-identified libertarian (and, it turns out, a California delegate for Donald Trump)
Well for one, it flies in the face of Libertarian ideology that Thiel likes to promote, that government power used against private individuals and businesses is the root of much of the evil in our society.
There isn't anything un-libertarian about suing someone for libel/slander/defamation. You'd find that most libertarians think that courts, military, prisons, etc. are legitimate roles for government. Basically government should defend peoples' lives & property from harm from others, but otherwise leave them alone. So that covers things like battery, murder, rape, theft, fraud.
On a side note, when I saw that he's a Trump supporter, I imagined Terry Jones saying a la his Life of Brian female voice "Libe
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's the big issue? This guy saw an opportunity to attack an opponent albeit in the shadows.
The issue is that it wasn't necessarily the judgment, but all the legal fees that are bankrupting Gawker. If HH had lost, it wouldn't have ended because this guy could just go find another mercenary to hire to sue Gawker again for him. Its sort of like gambling where the house always wins in the long run, not because the odds are slightly in their favor, but because they have way more money than you. If you tick off a rich guy, he can just spend you into the ground with lawsuits. Basically, this guy has sho
critic? (Score:2)
Since when was critic a verb?
Verbing Weirds Language (Score:2)
Since when was critic a verb?
Every since Calvin made verbing popular!
Calvin and Hobbes [gocomics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did TFS change after you wrote? I don't see critic used as a verb.
Yep TFS has changed.
[kneels on ground and raises fists to the sky and yells]
Damn you new /. and your fancy editors who are responsive.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw it too. Presumably it should have been "critiques" or "criticises".
Surprised that the editor was able to work that out, actually.
Sure it's libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Jay Rosen, media critic and a professor of journalism at New York University, said: Trying to kill a publication you don't like by funding lawsuits against them isn't very libertarian, is it?
Huh? It's not? Especially when they turn out to be valid lawsuits, it seems a very libertarian thing to do. If a company is wronging people in a way that lawsuits would succeed against them, but aren't normally pressed because those being wronged don't have the money for lawyers, sure, you can fund them.
Hell, I donate to a couple funds for doing just that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Courts are the Libertarian answer to just about everything, rather than regulations. An awful lot of slashdotters get us mixed up with anarchists.
That being said, as a moderate libertarian I'm for keeping some regulations around.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lovely....
How about this: You try to not ascribe my philosophy as deliberate evil, and I won't do the same to yours?
This comes under two main libertarian points:
1. Informed consumer. You're not supposed to lie.
2. Your right to throw your fist stops at my nose.
As long as what you're doing doesn't hurt others, do as you will. That being said, privacy is a right, and Gawker went too bloody far with Hogan.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I knew if this was intended as irony or a libertarian admitting that they are in favor of tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I knew if this was intended as irony or a libertarian admitting that they are in favor of tyranny.
Neither, I'd rate it as a fairly standard strawman attack on the philosophy.
Though 'doing whatever the fuck you want within the law' is libertarian so long as the law is well written.
My cliffs note version: "So long as everybody involved are informed consenting competent adults, do what you will"
For that matter, even if it is within the law, if you go harming somebody who's not consenting or not competent(such as being underage), expect to be hauled into court to pay damages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Attacking someone with lawsuits is only slightly less libertarian than hiring mercenaries to attack them physically.
hiring mercenaries (Score:3)
Hiring mercenaries to attack somebody is explicitly non-libertarian. It is a philosophy of self defense, not offense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Libel laws are the opposite of libertarian.
Re: (Score:3)
Libel laws are the opposite of libertarian.
No they aren't, at least when you're publishing non-true stuff. Honestly enough, I also value the right of privacy such that publishing a sex tape where multiple felonies were committed to gain it covertly, is also a violation amounting to a certain level of violence.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a big government with guns to enforce libel laws, so yes. They are the opposite of libertarian.
That's Anarchists, not libertarians (Score:2)
It takes a big government with guns to enforce libel laws, so yes. They are the opposite of libertarian.
Common mistake, libertarians aren't for weak or 'small' government, though we are for a smaller government than is currently in place.
We're for a limited government, which means a government that is restricted in scope of duties, not power to implement said duties. The government is too small/weak if it can't enforce court orders.
Unfortunately, there's a fairly intense(for the size of the party itself) misinformation campaign that mixes up Anarchist views with libertarian views.
For example, we ask why the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just disappointed that it took place in secret. I would have happily kicked in a few bucks to a kickstarter or gofundme for the endavour; especially if there were a tier where I could have gotten an "I helped put gawker out of business." t-shirt. (I'm picturing a nice caricature drawing of Jason Chen and Brian Lam getting steel-toed boots to the face and/or posterior here...)
Re: (Score:2)
Jay Rosen, media critic and a professor of journalism at New York University, said: Trying to kill a publication you don't like by funding lawsuits against them isn't very libertarian, is it?
Huh? It's not? Especially when they turn out to be valid lawsuits, it seems a very libertarian thing to do. If a company is wronging people in a way that lawsuits would succeed against them, but aren't normally pressed because those being wronged don't have the money for lawyers, sure, you can fund them.
Hell, I donate to a couple funds for doing just that.
Funding a lawsuit to stop a wrong from being done is nothing at all the same as funding a lawsuit with the intent of stopping unrelated behavior that you just happen to not like.
I thought that, in theory, libertarians believed in liberty. Or is that only for themselves, and it's ok to suppress everyone else's? I mean, if he were openly funding the lawsuits, you might have half a libertarian leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:2)
And boo hoo, he can't pretend to be a wrestler anymore as he's not much of a role model now is he?
What is the fun of fuck you money (Score:2)
Anti-libertarian Bias (Score:2, Insightful)
Trying to kill a publication you don't like by funding lawsuits against them isn't very libertarian, is it?
Wow, what bias.
A jury sitting within, and a judge of, the United States legal system may bankrupt Gawker, not Thiel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He used government power to silence someone he disliked.
Kneejerking Statism Catchphrases? (Score:2)
He used Government resources appropriately. Gawker lost the suit.
Libertarians aren't against government, contrary to popular leftwing statists views. The purpose of the government is to provide equal application of laws (something it has abrogated) and ensuring the rights (in the case Hulk Hogan) of individuals are upheld. The fact that the lawsuit was funded by him is irrelevant, except to statists who don't understand libertarianism.
The case here is one where an individual asked the state to protect his r
Re: (Score:2)
...The purpose of the government is to provide equal application of laws...
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France
Re: (Score:2)
He used government power to silence someone he disliked.
Seems perfectly fair. They posted a sex tape of him doing him material damage. They now have to pay restitution. That the victim got monetary help in presenting his case is irrelevant.
Going to the defendant for trial news (Score:2, Informative)
If this news is covered by unbiased sources, link one of them.
If it isn't covered by unbiased sources, then it isn't news, it's just the next round of character assassination.
C'mon slashdot.
WTF Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
The comment about Thiel's actions not being very libertarian is trolling. Since when do the editors engage in rampant trolling in the summaries? This is obnoxious.
Re: (Score:3)
Since forever?
Trying to kill a publication is very libertarian (Score:2)
Actually it's VERY Libertarian to sue (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does he see government and the legal system as separate entities? How would a weak government enforce legal decisions?
Re: (Score:2)
This is where I diverge from pure-Libertarianism. It's a good idea in theory
Re: (Score:2)
I think dispute resolution belongs with judges and juries not with politicization but whether its a question of enforcing the courts will or the stats will the correct answer is militia. The state or court can hire an army or regular citizens when required to enforce an action.
This serves as a final check on the power of states or a judge who might try to legislate from the bench. Citizens will not sign up in numbers or be willing to contribute funds for a militia if they don't support the cause. In the
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing I took out of it was that I asked him since the government under his Libertarian ideals was incredibly weak and small, what did you do when you had problems, like for example, some manufacturer sells you bad medicine? Simple - you sue. So instead of the government being your big stick the legal system is. So yes, I think it's very much in keeping with Libertarian principles to simply sue people you don't agree with.
Okay, first up, I'm not a fundie big-L Libertarian, but a more pragmatic little-l one. Still, I might have a couple corrections for you.
One - Weak and small government - I'm for a limited, not a weak, government. I see a 'weak' government as one that can't enforce it's mandates. In this sense, China has a weak government in the area of pollution because, despite the best, strongest, laws in the world* for environmental protection, they are unable or unwilling to enforce said mandates. On the other hand,
What's the story here? (Score:5, Informative)
They dug up dirt on him, he dug up dirt on them. Seems fair. I can see it being a problem if he hired thugs to rough up a few journalists to silence them. On the other hand, bringing up valid lawsuits in a legitimate court of law, at least one of which 12 independent jurors confirmed to be valid, that's fair game. Free press (or freedom of speech for that matter) doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any repercussions whatsoever. I guess some bloggers have to learn it the hard way.
Re: (Score:2)
By "dug up dirt" you mean they publicly outed him as gay when he was not ready, which was none of their, or our, fucking business (no pun intended). If I had the power and money, I would have done the same thing in his position. Fuck Gawker; they reaped what they sowed. As far as I'm concerned, it's poetic justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Next Time: On Silicon Valley (Score:2)
Very Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds very libertarian to me, at least he's not whining and bankrolling politicians to pass laws against his interests.
Someone explain the Gawker mentality to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Years ago, I started reading deadspin.com because it seemed cool, it had all this behind-the-scenes information about sports, it was a good way to avoid work for a few minutes. But I soon became aware there was a real nasty streak in the website. They didn't just report things that happened, they went out of their way to hurt people and say vicious things. Even when it wasn't warranted...sometimes it was warranted because some sports figures are real human trash. But every day there was this nasty, hurtful personality of the site, just ready to put the hooks into anyone who got in their way. I eventually had to stop reading because I was afraid this kind of thing was going to rub off on me. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you, that sort of thing.
In the years since, I have come to know that pretty much every website Gawker has is the same way. They are petty, cutting, severely biased, and often wrong. It's their bias and hurtful nature that leads them to make so many factual mistakes, they are so ready to unload on anyone. Even good people who mean well...especially good people who mean well, they get the extra treatment.
Can someone explain the mentality of the people who work for these websites? I just don't get it. How can journalists heartily enjoy such blackhearted behavior? Hulk Hogan is no hero but what they did to him was clearly wrong and clearly deserved a vicious legal smackdown. What turns these journalists into such lowlife scum, even more than the typical journalist?
Re: (Score:3)
Irony (Score:2)
Interesting how Gawker will peddle conspiracy theories when the target is them.
Meh gawker is dead, good riddance.
Folks, you've been had. (Score:5, Insightful)
Murdering arsonists should not jaywalk (Score:2)
Not really. Not directly. Not just for that.
But if they've left a flank hanging in the air, which Gawker appear to have done, you can sure as hell get them indirectly.
It's dirty tactics, but what goes around comes around.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as first amendment protections from private citizens. You are free to speak against the government not private citizens.
You are right though, Gawker has made their own bed and not many are inclined to defend them.
Re:Don't worry, nobody will care (Score:4, Insightful)
First amendment protections from private citizens? No. However, private citizens also don't have the right to shut others up simply because they don't like what the person/group is saying. In the US, people have is the ability to report the truth and not get sued for it being embarrassing to the parties involved. If what Gawker reported about Peter Thiel wasn't true, he could have sued them. Presumably, it was true (or Gawker used enough "allegedly" wording to protect their rears) so Thiel couldn't sue. So instead of fighting back against Gawker directly, he used his money to help others sue Gawker with the goal of shutting them up.
The problem here isn't that Gawker is a journalistic saint, but that they are being bullied into submission because they committed the crime of Embarrassing A Rich Guy. As such Rich Guy will use his funds to keep them quiet. If this is allowed, how long until other news organizations - or even individual people - are sued into silence for reporting on things that Random Rich Guys find embarrassing?
Re: (Score:2)
No. However, private citizens also don't have the right to shut others up simply because they don't like what the person/group is saying
So I take it you fought loudly and hard against Brendan Eich being ousted from Mozilla ? Or is this just a sudden dedication to fairplay and individual rights that only manifests when someone whose politics you dislike scores a victory against someone nominally on your side ?
Re: (Score:2)
No correlation found.
Firstly, no single individual tried to silence or remove Eich. I'll leave the reasons why this matters as a though exercise for those who obviously don't get enough.
Second, Brendan Eich is still completely free to espouse whatever opinions he wants, in whatever medium he chooses.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, properly, they are being taken to account for what they did to Hulk Hogan, and the publication of that video is much harder to defend than outing Thiel as a homosexual. The fact is that information gained through questionable, if not outright illegal means, cannot be just universally granted blanket First Amendment protections, and once again courts will be forced to ask "what public good was served by releasing this dubiously-obtained information"?
If this is a blanket First Amendment protection, then
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How the hell is that chilling for free press? A horrendous, shitty rag was doing blatantly illegal and unethical shit, and a rich guy made sure they can't just hide behind a wall of expensive lawyers by paying for expensive lawyers for the other side. Justice won, and the shitheads at Gawker will finally have to face some consequences. I hope the Conde Nast guy they outed sues them for everything that's left after Hogan, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't worry, nobody will care (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone hates Gawker so nobody here will defend them, even though this is fucking chilling for a free press.
Something something ethics in journalism.
If there were anything close to "Close To Ethics In Journalism" this could never have happened. Gawker is little more than a giant trolling operation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the way of the world now
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/J... [rationalwiki.org]
Re:Rich people fucking over everyone else (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except Gawker is loosing the cases. This very much does imply Gawker did do something wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Gawker didn't so anything wrong, except offend some rich racist bastard.
Gawker posted a sex tape of Hulk Hogan against his will.
If Fox News posted a sex tape of some female celebrity, and Peter Thiel funded the lawsuit against them, would you say "Fox News didn't so anything wrong, except offend some rich racist bastard."?
This isn't about the 1st Amendment. Nobody is stopping Gawker from saying these things. Nobody from Gawker is going to jail. They're just being held accountable for the direct damages they cause. Whether or not you agree with the amount awarded is another
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody said it's illegal. Not everything that's legal is right.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like Thiel
but I dislike him less after reading this story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The best word for would be Classical Liberal as the the term liberal has morphed into progressivism one of many collectivist sects.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that misunderstands what anarchists are. I'd argue that they weren't even Libertarians, and certainly their actions when they became heads of government were not the actions of people who believed the state had virtually no role at all. Quite the opposite, particularly for Madison and Jefferson.
Beyond that, I question the notion that any of them viewed the state as an evil. They certainly viewed the State as capable of evil, but then again, the way the Constitution divvied up powers was largely beca
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! I think "capriciously" is the operative word here. The entire point of the Revolution was not that the British government didn't have the right to collect taxes (which seems to be the view of the more extreme Libertarians who keep talking about taxation as "theft"), but rather that the British Parliament had no moral right to impose taxes without giving representation to those who were being taxed. The crux of the matter was the British government's refusal to recognize the colonial assemblies as b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The state is obliged to set up a court system and put a set of rules in place for the courts to work. Courts are not a Thunderdome, where two men enter and one man leaves. So even disputes between two people, where they cannot resolve the dispute outside of court, will necessarily become the concern of the State, since at least one of those people in the dispute has decided the State must become an actor.
For chrissakes, adjudication is probably one of the oldest roles of governance.
Re: (Score:2)
But, but, but, libertarian!
Re: (Score:2)
As a libertarian, I see "Might makes right" a lot more coming from leftwing side of things, like when idiots block traffic to protest something nobody in traffic has any connection to, and thinking that is just fine and dandy.
I see "might makes right" as the sad truth of the world far too often. It's why we band up and put power into the hands of government, to hopefully have a neutral party willing to enforce a standard set of rules. The libertarian party are not anarchists, and 'weak' government is a misnomer - the correct phrase is 'limited'. A limited government is one that is only present in the areas granted to it. It should NOT be weak in those areas. It shouldn't be involved in areas where it hasn't been granted jur
Re: (Score:2)
It's not barratry if the defendant is guilty.