Thiel’s strategy [to shut down Gawker through litigation] demonstrates how tech money...can now also suppress freedom of expression....
I think the writer is pointing out the irony that an investor who has benefited enormously from an open web has now effectively made it less open, because of the potentially stifling effect of lawsuits like his.
It would be a powerful argument, except that Thiel's money wasn't as instrumental in killing Gawker as Gawker's own behavior. The same attacks levied against, say, the NYT wouldn't have accomplished anything except losing Thiel money.
I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech.
I mean if Tiel was pouring millions after millions into failing lawsuits that just aim to drain whatever money he can sure but a single successful lawsuit?
> I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech.
It's not spin if it is true: a suit does not need to be successful to ruin the targeted victim - simply defending yourself from a lawsuit costs a lot of money, good luck defending yourself from a well-resourced nemesis.
Without commenting on Gawker's culpability, I will draw parallels to Mother Jones, which was also sued by a billionaire[1] (Vandersloot), but they managed to beat the suit.
Incensed, VanderSloot set up a million dollar fund available to pay the legal expenses of people wanting to sue Mother Jones or other members of the "liberal press."[1]
MoJo even weighed in on Thiel v Gawker, stating For the likes of VanderSloot, Adelson, Thiel, and Trump, the courts have become an avenue not so much for vindication, but for exacting a price[2]. They've been in the trenches, I'll take their word over people who assume only the guilty get punished by the justice system.
If it wasn't clear - I was quoting a Mother Jones article (which I agree with). And if you don't mind my asking, how is Thiel different from the others, if the premise is that the others are weaponizing the courts to exact a price on their foes?
> And was Thiel and the others not "in the tranches" too?
"In the trenches" isn't a metaphor I would use for Thiel and the other aggressors; I would say he was more than 200 miles behind the front in an air-conditioned tent with a fridge and a decanter of whisky in the corner.
> weaponizing the courts to exact a price on their foes
Because his case had merit. The price exacted was just punishment for crime.
> isn't a metaphor I would use for Thiel
because he's wealth and well off? I don't think any of the publications employees had to skip a meal either.
It wasn't Thiel that threw the first punch. Was was brought upon Gawker's head was brought on by themselves. Describing punishment for crime as "being in the trenches" divorces from the situation the most important thing - right and wrong. I don't know about the MJ cases, but Gawker was in the wrong.
>As that uber-blogger Dave Winer observed: “Gawker is gone because Peter Thiel financed its murder-by-lawyer. It’s legal to do this in the US, but until now as far as I know, no one has crossed this line. Now that the line has been crossed, it’s fair to assume it will become standard practice for billionaires like Thiel to finance lawsuits until the publication loses and has to sell itself to pay the judgment.”
>I wasn’t ever a great admirer of Gawker, but Dave Winer is right: Thiel’s strategy demonstrates how tech money not only talks, but can now also suppress freedom of expression, even in the land of the first amendment.
He financed their murder by lawyer but it's a vulnerability that only affects the weak and diseased. Expecting not to be punished for egregious illegal actions simply because your victims don't have enough money to make use of the court system is even more cynical and worrying than the alternative.
As someone in a country without a first amendment equivalent, I think it's great. It's fabulous. It also doesn't give you free reign to say whatever you want to about anyone in public and that's entirely reasonable.
As for a party with more money tying up someone else in multiple expensive lawsuits. It's certainly not a practice limited to tech billionaires alone.
I suspect Denton expected to have negative ramifications. I do not believe he expected to be held personally liable for the actions of a corporation he was part of and that both the personal and corporate liabilities would have unprecedented magnitude. Further, the article says that benefactor style lawsuits are fairly novel and thus it is unreasonable to expect someone with a vendetta for publishing a true statement about them would relentlessly pursue and finance litigation until the company was destroyed.
> it only effects[sic] the weak and diseased
I would hope, but would not expect that to be the case. The government and large scale corporations can certainly make headway sueing companies like wikileaks for publishing damaging media they do not control. This is quite a dangerous precedent and how bad things can potentially get is up to the creativity of very powerful companies & lawyers.
> He financed their murder by lawyer but it's a vulnerability that only affects the weak and diseased
This is in no way true! Everyone is vulnerable because win or lose, a lawsuit costs both sides money. Repeated enough times, the side with more money wins.
If I had the motivation and the resources, do you think I would fail to fund a suit by someone who has a valid grievance against you for something you did in the past 5 years? Are you certain you are not "weak and diseased"?
Therefore, the final sentence of my comment. Of course the system is prone to abuse by larger entities in certain cases but that's highly dependent on each jurisdiction and their particular anti-slapp laws which should ideally protect you from that sort of strategic suit. It's a separate issue than one single case bankrupting you because of a phenomenally bad and actionable editing decision.
I think the writer is pointing out the irony that an investor who has benefited enormously from an open web has now effectively made it less open, because of the potentially stifling effect of lawsuits like his.