Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel Accused Of Financing Hulk Hogan's Ridiculous Lawsuits Against Gawker
from the wtf,-peter? dept
So here's a crazy and unfortunate story. On Monday evening, the NY Times posted a rather weird story suggesting that there was someone with a grudge against Gawker funding the various lawsuits against the site, including Hulk Hogan's multiple lawsuits (he recently filed another one, even more ridiculous than the first -- which resulted in a $115 million verdict against Gawker that hopefully will get tossed on appeal). The NYT piece was weird in that it was pure innuendo -- just saying that Gawker's Nick Denton was increasingly sure that someone who really disliked the site was funding the lawsuits. It was surprising that the NY Times ran it given the lack of anything beyond speculation and rumor. And then, about 24 hours later, Forbes publishes a story saying that it's well-known billionaire Peter Thiel funding the lawsuit (warning: Forbes' ridiculous anti-adblock policy means you may not be able to read that article):Peter Thiel, a PayPal cofounder and one of the earliest backers of Facebook, has been secretly covering the expenses for Hulk Hogan’s lawsuits against online news organization Gawker Media. According to people familiar with the situation who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, Thiel, a cofounder and partner at Founders Fund, has played a lead role in bankrolling the cases Terry Bollea, a.k.a. Hogan, brought against New York-based Gawker. Hogan is being represented by Charles Harder, a prominent Los Angeles-based lawyer.First off, it's perhaps no surprise that Thiel is very anti-Gawker. Lots of people dislike Gawker, and many of them have really good reasons to dislike Gawker. Its Silicon Valley coverage, in particular, was often terrible and basically just wrong. Its Valleywag publication often went for snark and conspiracy over reality. In Thiel's case, he has a much more direct reason for hating Gawker. In 2007, the publication outed him for no reason at all other than because it wanted to do so.
That said: this is insane. Thiel has his quirks, and has a reputation for supporting extreme political causes (that then, unfortunately, lead many outside of Silicon Valley to think his views are representative of the Valley), but funding a lawsuit (or possibly a series of lawsuits) that is flat out designed to undermine the First Amendment goes beyond what most people would expect. And that's doubly true given that his lawsuits against Gawker could have serious damage on free speech on the internet. It's one thing to hate Gawker and to wish its demise. It's another thing entirely to fund a series of lawsuits that chill expression online.
For what it's worth, it's also worth noting (as both of the articles linked above do), that the same lawyer who represented Hogan, and who Thiel is allegedly paying, is also the lawyer handling Shiva Ayyadurai's ridiculous lawsuit against Gawker, which cites the Hogan case for support. In our write-up of that ridiculous lawsuit, we noted that it looked like Ayyadurai was inspired by Hogan's victory, but we didn't realize that it was the same lawyer, and possibly funded from the same source.
For what it's worth, there are questions about if other lawsuits against Gawker are also being funded by Thiel, and you have to at least wonder if that includes Chuck Johnson's ridiculous defamation lawsuit against Gawker. As you may recall, Johnson struck out in Missouri, but filed the identical suit in California. Ayyadurai's lawsuit cites Johnson's lawsuit as proof of Gawker's pattern of bad behavior, even though both lawsuits are ridiculous. But it's also worth noting that Johnson and Thiel actually appear to have some political similarities, including both becoming strong Donald Trump supporters (Thiel is, famously, a Trump delegate, while Johnson says he's an alternate).
As a bit of an aside, how much more terrifying is it now when you hear Trump talk about "opening up" libel laws to make it easier to sue the press -- or him praising the district court win by Hogan over Gawker?
Thiel has obviously had quite a bit of success on the internet with Paypal, and then leveraging that into the first money into Facebook, along with helping to found Palantir (though that company is raising questions lately as well). He's also funded lots of other companies and famously supported Ron Paul and certain libertarian causes. But a lawsuit against an online publication solely out of vindictiveness (even if his hatred of the publication is for perfectly valid reasons) is a terrible, terrible idea that seems to go against his supposed libertarian views. It's also just petty and vindictive, and only cements in the misleading idea that Silicon Valley is full of ego-maniacal billionaires for whom the ends always justify the means.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: charles harder, chuck johnson, defamation, financing lawsuits, free speech, hulk hogan, lawsuits, peter thiel, privacy, shiva ayyadurai
Companies: gawker
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps instead of bitching you might want to participate in a discussion here, and maybe change some minds instead of coming across as a mardy fool with nothing to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
hard to tell who is a paid shill and who is just clueless these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, the thesis is that using the government (laws, courts) to suppress speech you dislike is what seems to go against libertarian principles.
I thought that was clear and apologize if it was not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless that speech is anti-libertarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tired blather...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tired blather...
And then will lose on appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tired blather...
Yes, I agree that the lawsuit is ridiculous; but that doesn't mean the the case doesn't have merit. And honestly, this is one of the very few times that I want both parties to lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tired blather...
Umm, what?
If the lawsuit is ridiculous, then it has no merit. If the lawsuit has merit, it isn't ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tired blather...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tired blather...
There remain the options that:
1 - our laws had unintended consequences
2 - our laws have intended consequences, but were manipulated and are not just
3 - the court messed up
4 - the full legal process is not complete
5 - relevant evidence was suppressed
6 - one side successfully lied or faked or suppressed evidence
etc, etc. Sure, a trial is legally conclusive, but OJ got off, and lots of innocent people are in jail. False positives and false negatives abound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tired blather...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wealth is Truth
Turns out that most people have pretty weak principles. Or at least most people who acquire a billion dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wealth is Truth
But, is that just because of the money, or because the very few people who manage to acquire that much wealth tend to have dropped their principles in order to acquire it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wealth is Truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wealth is Truth
So you can't say that most people would behave badly if they got that money, because their principles would prevent them from getting that money in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wealth is Truth
"You cannot serve both God and money." - Matthew 6:24
"Facebook shares hit new all-time high as Street cheers earnings" - CNBC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wealth is Truth
I've always strongly felt that in order reach such incredible levels of wealth, being really smart or having great ideas is simply not enough. You also have to be an asshole, or at least have some asshole-ish qualities, even if they're not obvious to many. In modern Western capitalist systems you don't get that rich by being the nice guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The word for today is: ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The word for today is: ridiculous
That ridiculous claim is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn it off for the landing page(Disable this page only.) click continue. ABP continues to block and the content is served. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Despite your loathing for Gawker the fact remains that letting the government decide what is newsworthy is a dangerous precedent to set.
I don't feel bad for Hogan, he shouldn't have been cheating on his wife. It was karma. Not only was he cheating it was in a weird "Hey can you fuk my wife" kinda way. Hulk was more mad he got caught rather than feeling bad for his betrayal.
-
"Hogan blames Linda for practically making him have sex with his friend's wife, saying she was verbally and emotionally abusive to him."
Uh huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The issue, as I wrote in my original article, is that the case focused on whether or not the story was "newsworthy." And I have serious concerns when we allow a jury and/or courts to be making editorial decisions after the fact over what is, or is not, newsworthy.
I agree that, personally, posting such videos is disgusting and sickening and I have no problem with people shunning or shaming Gawker for posting them. But I worry a great deal when it reaches the point where the courts then are making editorial decisions for publications. To me that seems to clearly violate the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment
TL;DR - courts adjudicate laws that legislatures pass. Legislatures can't pass laws that violate the 1st amendment, so courts can't rule in ways that would allow them to.
First, the 1st Amendment only binds Congress, so you're right, State courts aren't bound yet. But the 14th Amendment has been construed by the Supreme Court to "incorporate" parts of the first 10 amendments against the state, such that they also limit each States powers too. In this manner, the 1st Amendment applies to each State through the 14th Amendment. Additional cases conclude that political subdivisions of a State derive their power from the State, and so are also bound by the 1st (via the 14th).
Now that we're clear that the 1st Amendment applies to all levels of government, we need to see the link to how it applies to this case. Hulk Hogan sued under a combination of legal theories, which I'll simplify by calling them them all a Privacy Law (the simplification won't matter, since they all get treated the same here anyway). The (simplified) Privacy Law says that anyone whose privacy has been violated and suffers damages may sue in court for those damages from the person who damaged them by releasing private information. Hogan's privacy was violated, and he sues. But here's how the 1st Amendment ties in, "Congress shall make no law..." says that at the outset that any law that Congress (or any State or State subdivision under the 14th) makes that abridges the freedom of speech is void ab initio as ultra vires (fancy latin for never existed and beyond their power).
Now suppose that Congress had never passes such a law, and Hogan sues anyway. In this scenario, there is no statutory law that says he can get damages. But no, says Hogan, I'm suing under the common law theory of torts, where I can recover for actual damages from anyone who has damaged me. This part is a little more complicated as torts (injuries caused by another person) vary a lot depending on intent and the history of each state, so I'll summarize it even more. When the US first formed (including the original Confederation) we didn't have any statutory laws (they'd all been England's - ignore Louisiana as it's French, but same idea), so the judges at the time said we'll continue to use the old English Common Law, which was the law as spoken by the judges of England, and defined general duties and obligations under things like contracts, torts, land, and a few other areas. So when the constitution came around, we had a set of background principles of law we were already following, and that's what Hogan says he's suing under.
But under this background principle we only get a default set of rules - rules to use when the legislature hasn't specified anything else. So when we pass the 1st Amendment, it supersedes any other Common Laws that don't adhere to it. Under the old Common Law theories, Hogan may have had a case, but under Common Law as amended by the 1st (and 14th) Amendments, he doesn't.
So under statutory law (i.e. Congress shall make no law...) Hogan has to lose, and under Common Law (old English law) Hogan has to lose..... as long as the court decides that Gawker was engaged in ..."the freedom of speech..." Under current law that's almost definitely a yes, but lower level state judges tend to abdicate their obligations to rule on constitutional issues, requiring escalation through state and then federal appellate courts.
Now you may ask, but isn't this a purely private dispute between Hogan and Gawker? It was, until Hogan asked the government to join his side. In essence, any civil lawsuit isn't really just between the two parties, but rather is one party (the plaintiff) asking the government to enforce something against the other (the respondent). The result of a lawsuit like that is having the government do something. If it were truly a purely private function then Gawker could tell Hogan to pound sand with his $100M verdict - only because Hogan can use the power of the State to enforce that verdict and seize Gawkers assets brings the 1st amendment into play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The courts are more and more enforcing political correctness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ends justifying the means is a core precept for libertarians. Every ideology has a set of core values, an "Ideal Man" that it holds up to be emulated. For libertarianism, the Ideal Man is a sociopath, a person who believes he does not have to live by the rules of the society that supports him.
It's a bit ironic. One of the founders of PayPal reinvested his billions in trying to solve some of the most serious problems facing the world. Another, it seems, took his money and set out to make them worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Libertarianism as an ideology is actually quite vast; the more recent right-wing corporatism is the thing you're decrying and I happen to agree with you on that point. However, not all Libertarians are corporatists or hand-wringing voluntaryists who stand there asking why you don't just vote with your wallet if you're not happy with the situation you're in. The smart ones tend to take the public interest into consideration in recognition of the fact that it's impossible to be completely independent, each in our own private walled garden, particularly in an urban environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outed in the Bay Area??
While we certainly are impatiently waiting for the rest of the world to catch up, the social cost of being gay in the Bay Area is as 'near zero' as the cost of reproduction of an MP3. Isn't it?
I suppose I'm probably the victim of wishful thinking. There's always enough bigots to make life unpleasant for others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYTimes links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the upside, all of this insanity he is funding will eventually open a door for someone to sue him for something as ridiculous. He will decry it and claim how wrong it is... ignoring that he created the atmosphere where it thrived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply calling Thiel "Randian" would have been more concise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hogans case against Gawker was as legitimate as you can get. Who helped pay the bills for it doesn't matter. Now, if someone is also paying to generate a lot of frivolous cases, that's bad, but Hogans doesn't fit with the rest.
I can't imagine anyone defending gawkers actions with regards to hulk hogan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're off on the wrong foot already. It doesn't matter if you like them or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe TechDirt allows such a worthless thing to write for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]