Unless you've got your head under a rock you've seen stories about Peter Thiel's crusade against Gawker. After several hinting stories, it was finally revealed that Thiel underwrote Hulk Hogan's case (originally discussed on PCF here) as well as other yet unidentified attempts to sue Gawker for it's reporting and/or commentary.
Now people are coming out of the woodwork to rebuke or distance themselves from Thiel and his legal strategy, often with broad statements about how litigation of this kind should not be permitted.
The Cliff's:
Thiel was semi-outed as gay (he was out to friends/family, but not publicly outspoken about his sexuality) in a 2007 Gawker piece and was evidently not pleased. He followed Gawker over the next decade and eventually found, among others, a candidate for high-return litigation against Gawker in Hulk Hogan. That case eventually resulted in a $140MM verdict which is currently on appeal.
The New York Times reported on rumors that Thiel was funding Hogan's litigation and soon after that article, Thiel confirmed the truth of the rumors. Gawker has written numerous pieces on the matter including an open letter from founder Nick Denton. The New York Times has also weighed in (though that article which purports to consider the threat to press freedom is sadly short on substance imo).
As much of a fan of Gawker as I am and as much of a travesty I think the Hogan case to be, I still don't know that I'm quite on board with the argument that litigation against media outlets is some kind of attempt to subvert the First Amendment.
Cases like these are routinely thrown out of court on motion well before extraordinary expenses are incurred by the publisher. Litigation "of this kind" is already prohibited and, if the motions had been handled properly, the case would have been dismissed, perhaps even with an award of attorneys' fees to the defendant. Only because of the abject stupidity of the judge in the Hogan case did it go anywhere. Yes, if you get past a thick-skulled judge you can occasionally get a jury of idiots to forget that they live in America, but in truth it's a failure of the judiciary and the citizenry represented by the jury at that point, not an indication of some kind of corrupt strategy by the plaintiff.
So far as I can tell now, Thiel is most certainly a self-absorbed jerk and has pushed forward with this case - the Hogan case- in bad faith, but I can't agree that the remedy is somehow to change the law to make it impossible or even more difficult for citizens to sue media organizations.
I'm not certain in my opinions on this, so I'd love to hear the views of anyone who has taken the time to understand the above facts.
Now people are coming out of the woodwork to rebuke or distance themselves from Thiel and his legal strategy, often with broad statements about how litigation of this kind should not be permitted.
The Cliff's:
Thiel was semi-outed as gay (he was out to friends/family, but not publicly outspoken about his sexuality) in a 2007 Gawker piece and was evidently not pleased. He followed Gawker over the next decade and eventually found, among others, a candidate for high-return litigation against Gawker in Hulk Hogan. That case eventually resulted in a $140MM verdict which is currently on appeal.
The New York Times reported on rumors that Thiel was funding Hogan's litigation and soon after that article, Thiel confirmed the truth of the rumors. Gawker has written numerous pieces on the matter including an open letter from founder Nick Denton. The New York Times has also weighed in (though that article which purports to consider the threat to press freedom is sadly short on substance imo).
As much of a fan of Gawker as I am and as much of a travesty I think the Hogan case to be, I still don't know that I'm quite on board with the argument that litigation against media outlets is some kind of attempt to subvert the First Amendment.
Cases like these are routinely thrown out of court on motion well before extraordinary expenses are incurred by the publisher. Litigation "of this kind" is already prohibited and, if the motions had been handled properly, the case would have been dismissed, perhaps even with an award of attorneys' fees to the defendant. Only because of the abject stupidity of the judge in the Hogan case did it go anywhere. Yes, if you get past a thick-skulled judge you can occasionally get a jury of idiots to forget that they live in America, but in truth it's a failure of the judiciary and the citizenry represented by the jury at that point, not an indication of some kind of corrupt strategy by the plaintiff.
So far as I can tell now, Thiel is most certainly a self-absorbed jerk and has pushed forward with this case - the Hogan case- in bad faith, but I can't agree that the remedy is somehow to change the law to make it impossible or even more difficult for citizens to sue media organizations.
I'm not certain in my opinions on this, so I'd love to hear the views of anyone who has taken the time to understand the above facts.