![]() And the idea that a billionaire whose feelings have been hurt by a couple of articles can try to destroy it from behind the scenes is hugely disturbing.Īs it turns out, it’s not just the Hulk Hogan case: Thiel admitted in his interview with the Times that he decided several years ago to secretly fund multiple cases in an attempt to cripple the company, and that there is at least one other case before the courts that he’s involved in.Īlthough Thiel didn’t specify the case, Gawker is also fighting a lawsuit launched by Dr. ![]() But despite the jury’s initial verdict, there is little doubt that the site’s behavior is fully protected by the First Amendment, or should be. Gawker’s penchant for publishing rumors and salacious gossip has made it one of the most unsympathetic media defendants since Hustler publisher Larry Flynt took on right-wing Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell in 1987. Technically, there are laws against funding someone else’s lawsuit-common-law rules that use odd names like “champerty” and “barratry.” These were designed to stop rich people from financing legal battles in order to share in the proceeds or cause trouble. Regardless of his motives, however, is Thiel doing anything wrong by funding Hogan’s case? In a strict legal sense, the likely answer is no. One of the stories that bothered Thiel most, Silicon Valley insiders say, was the one that outed him publicly as being gay in 2007. ![]() The billionaire has been a vocal critic of Gawker’s former Valleywag column for years, calling the New York-based publication “the Silicon Valley equivalent of Al Qaeda,” among other things. Once suspicion had been aroused, Thiel seemed like one of a number of logical candidates for a vendetta against Gawker. Get Data Sheet, Fortune ’s technology newsletter. Removing the insurance coverage seemed like a move that was driven more by an emotional desire to ruin the company than by any desire for restitution. In most cases, the plaintiff would want the defendant to be covered by insurance, because that would increase his or her chances of getting the full amount of any damages, especially given that the Hogan case was asking for more money than Gawker makes in a year in revenues. For example, the plaintiff amended its claim in such a way that it guaranteed Gawker wouldn’t be able to rely on its insurance to pay any damages, and that set off warning bells. ![]() Sources close to Gawker say they became suspicious during the trial that someone else might be behind the Hogan lawsuit, because of the way the case was handled. Hogan said he was unaware he was being recorded and that his reputation was besmirched, and earlier this year he won a judgement of $140 million that Gawker is appealing. To recap, Hogan sued Gawker for invasion of privacy after the site published a story in 2012 about the wrestler having sex with a friend’s wife, and included a short clip from a recording of the act. And that has disturbing implications for freedom of the press, as Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo notes in a post:īeing able to give massive political contributions actually pales in comparison to the impact of being able to destroy a publication you don’t like by combining the machinery of the courts with anonymity and unlimited funds to bleed a publication dry. With Thiel’s involvement, it has become more about an attempt to bankrupt a publication that a billionaire investor dislikes for personal reasons. This adds a rather startling twist to the case, which appeared to be merely about an aging wrestler’s attempt to prove that his privacy was invaded. Thiel is probably best known for being an early investor in Facebook and a co-founder of PayPal. After a report by Forbes, which the New York Times eventually corroborated, billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel gave the NYT an interview in which he admitted to helping fund Hogan’s legal case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |