General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill Bezos take down AMI the way the Hulkster and Charles Harder took down Gawker?
HAB911
(8,957 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)dlk
(11,606 posts)We will know fairly soon.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)MrGrieves
(315 posts)I dont really see admiration. I see a comparison.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)He had private sex and Gawker publicized it.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)Allowing Thiel to get what he perceived as revenge through Hogan because Thiels own litigation had failed in courts.
https://gawker.com/gawker-was-murdered-by-gaslight-1785456581
Gawker.com is out of business because one wealthy person maliciously set out to destroy it, spending millions of dollars in secret, and succeeded. That is the only reason.
...
What Thiels covert campaign against Gawker did was to invisibly change the terms of the risk calculation. The change begins with the post about Thiels sexual identity in a homophobic investor culture, the post Thiel now cites as the inspiration for his decision to destroy Gawker. It was solidly protected by media law and the First Amendment, as were the other posts that, as Thiel wrote, attacked and mocked peoplespecifically, his cohort of rising plutocrats in Silicon Valley. Hurting rich peoples feelings is, in principle, not a punishable offense.
So rather than fighting the material that he really objected to, Thiel went looking for pretexts. Over time, he came up with them. Gawker found itself attracting legal threats and lawsuits at an unprecedented rate. Among those was Hulk Hogans complaint against Gawker for having written about a sex video he appeared in, and for publishing brief excerpts of that video. This was the kind of case that, in the normal course of things, would have gone away. Hogans first two attempts to pursue it, in federal court, went nowhere, with judges ruling that the publication was newsworthy and protected.
Yet the case kept moving. Suddenly the company had exhausted the limits of its insurance and was bleeding money on legal fees. The business model on which it had thrivedwriting things that people were interested in reading, and selling ads to reach those readerswas foundering due to a whole new class of expenses.
...
If you want to write stories that might anger a billionaire, you need to work for another billionaire yourself, or for a billion-dollar corporation. The law will not protect you. There is no freedom in this world but power and money.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)That is not protected speech as the trial court and subsequent appeals courts found. Just because Thiel is an unappealing character doesn't justify Gawker's gross invasion of the Hulkster's privacy.
Back to the topic. If Bezos takes down The Enquier I won't shed a tear.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)A sum which bankrupted them and effectively put them out of business. This was lawfare practiced by Thiel for revenge.
Im not informed as to whats going on with Bezos and the Enquirer yet, but I did not like the precedent set by the Gawker ruling.
Gawker spoke truth to power and a powerful person shut it down.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)video of Hogan having sex. Thats not truth to power, its gossip. Glad they are bankrupt.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)But the 1st Amendment doesn't give the press the right to invade a person's privacy.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Johnny2X2X
(19,286 posts)The bigger story is the President used government resources to gather and release this data.