First, there’s the obvious: freedom of expression is supposed to protect the speech you dislike the most. And I wanted to dig in on why it’s so dangerous. Thiel said he had not targeted any other media companies.Īnd this brings me to the second reason I’m posting more on this story: a surprising number of people (to me) keep supporting Thiel in this, and arguing that because what Gawker did was so horrible that this vendetta against them is okay. If the entire media was more or less like this, this would be like trying to boil the ocean.? Mr. In a way, if I didn?t think Gawker was unique, I wouldn?t have done any of this. The way I?ve thought about this is that Gawker has been a singularly terrible bully. He continued, ?It?s not like it is some sort of speaking truth to power or something going on here. ![]() It?s precisely because I respect journalists that I do not believe they are endangered by fighting back against Gawker.? ?I think much more highly of journalists than that. ?I refuse to believe that journalism means massive privacy violations,? he said. He said he did not believe his actions were contradictory. Incredibly, Thiel, who has given a large amount of money to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and who has claimed to be a big supporter of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, pulled a classic “I support freedom of speech, but…” line in response to questions along those lines, basically saying that he doesn’t think Gawker counts. And that’s true no matter how terrible you think Gawker is as a media property. That said, specifically funding lawyers to go hunting for plaintiffs with the deliberate intent of killing a media publication? That’s problematic. While it can be abused, you can also see where it could be helpful for people who otherwise couldn’t afford the legal costs. I, frankly, don’t have a huge concern over people funding others’ lawsuits. This also seems ethically dubious, even if it’s perfectly legal. Later on he admits: “It’s safe to say this is not the only. Thiel declined to disclose what other cases he had supported but there are at least two current cases against Gawker. ?In a way very similar to how a plaintiff?s lawyer on contingency would do it.? Mr. ?Without going into all the details, we would get in touch with the plaintiffs who otherwise would have accepted a pittance for a settlement, and they were obviously quite happy to have this sort of support,? he said. He said that he hired a legal team several years ago to look for cases that he could help financially support. First, he admits that he didn’t just back Hogan, but rather gave lawyers money to go hunting for anyone who might want to sue Gawker, directly out of spite. First, Thiel has admitted to it, and insisted that he views it as “philanthropy.” There are a number of claims that Thiel makes that are quite troubling. ![]() So I had thought that our post yesterday about Peter Thiel allegedly financing Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker would be the only time we posted about that story, but a few things have happened that seem to merit a further post. Thu, May 26th 2016 08:31am - Mike Masnick
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |