Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan sex tape

beach_walker

It's now come out that billionaire dude Peter Thiel secretly funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker, which will in all likelihood bankrupt them. He did this as payback against them for outting him as gay a few years ago.

Hulk Hogan sued Gawker Media for invasion of privacy after it published a sex tape, and a Florida jury recently awarded the wrestler, whose real name is Terry Gene Bollea, $140 million.

What the jury — and the public — did not know was that Mr. Bollea had a secret benefactor paying about $10 million for the lawsuit: Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and one of the earliest investors in Facebook.

A 2007 article published by Gawker’s Valleywag blog was headlined, “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.” That and a series of articles about his friends and others that he said “ruined people’s lives for no reason” drove Mr. Thiel to mount a clandestine war against Gawker. He funded a team of lawyers to find and help “victims” of the company’s coverage mount cases against Gawker.

NYTimes article

My initial thoughts on hearing this were that it was bloody fantastic. Absolute gutter site got what was coming to them. Talking to a friend this morning and he was worried about this. Said that even though it's a "somewhat karmic end" the idea of billionaires being able to shut down media outlets is worrying. What say you, good people of AH?

brevity

That thread title though.

Duggy747

Good, Gawker is a terrible site and they're reaping what they sowed. The company's brand of horseshít and bullying extends onto their other sites too like Kotaku and Jezebel.

No sympathy for them.

Sierra 117

Gakwer got itself shut down due to their abhorrent behaviour.

Sleepy

No problem with it at all tbh. I've always said that one of the first things I'd do if I won the Euromillions would be to instruct a solicitor to contact the editors of all the major Irish press informing them that should my name be published in association with the win, I'd have very deep pockets with which to destroy them.

beach_walker

beach_walker wrote: »

It's now come out that billionaire dude Peter Thiel secretly funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker, which will in all likelihood bankrupt them. He did this as payback against them for outting him as gay a few years ago.



NYTimes article

My initial thoughts on hearing this were that it was bloody fantastic. Absolute gutter site got what was coming to them. Talking to a friend this morning and he was worried about this. Said that even though it's a "somewhat karmic end" the idea of billionaires being able to shut down media outlets is worrying. What say you, good people of AH?

People support things they're into.. This guy is into privacy and wanted his revenge. It's exactly like saying "How dare people picket against that policy?"

And he didn't shut down anything. It was a billionaire supporting a millionaire up against another multi multi millionaire. The court's ruling and subsequent quashing of the appeal that did that.

The_Valeyard

It's Gawker's own fault.

They had no right to release that sex tape or force Thiel out of the closest. Everyone has a reasonable right to privacy.

Lyaiera

I don't read gawker but I think it's the nature of the world that wealth is going to be used to push people around. Very few people would have the ability to mount a multi-million dollar case against someone, pouring as many lawyers onto the flames as possible, whether the case is justified or not. It's a power imbalance between the mega rich and normal citizens. In much the same way your average person may be treated horrendously by a publication, seriously libelled, and have every right to take them to the cleaners, but not have the ability to afford to take a case.

It's a sign of wealth inequality.

mahoganygas

Sleepy wrote: »

No problem with it at all tbh. I've always said that one of the first things I'd do if I won the Euromillions would be to instruct a solicitor to contact the editors of all the major Irish press informing them that should my name be published in association with the win, I'd have very deep pockets with which to destroy them.

Or just don't go public in the first place?

Sleepy

On the other hand, it could also be looked at as a form of philanthropy. If there's enough Peter Thiel's in the world ready to punish those who don't respect the privacy of others, the press will learn to behave itself. Once precedence has been set by a few big cases, it becomes an awful lot easier for Joe Q Public to hire legal representation on the reasonable expectation of being awarded costs too...

Sleepy

mahoganygas wrote: »

Or just don't go public in the first place?

It doesn't matter if you go public or not, the press tend to be waiting outside the offices to try and identify the winner even if they express a desire to remain private.

seamus

beach_walker wrote: »

the idea of billionaires being able to shut down media outlets is worrying.

Yes, but that's not really what's happened. If Gawker had done nothing wrong, then in theory it shouldn't be possible for anyone to shut them down, regardless of how deep their pockets are. In this case, they've ****ed up, their own mistake has destroyed them.

However there is something fundamentally broken when the two below statements are true;

1. In order to get justice, a person may need deep pockets. If you don't, tough ****.
2. Someone with deep pockets can abuse the justice system to "starve" another person into submission, regardless of who is in the right.

Which is the situation in practically every justice system today.

mahoganygas

Denis O'Brien comparison in 3...2....1.....

YFlyer

Sleepy wrote: »

No problem with it at all tbh. I've always said that one of the first things I'd do if I won the Euromillions would be to instruct a solicitor to contact the editors of all the major Irish press informing them that should my name be published in association with the win, I'd have very deep pockets with which to destroy them.

I be up all night thinking about the same.

DrumSteve

mahoganygas wrote: »

Denis O'Brien comparison in 3...2....1.....

there's a Denis O'Brien sex tape?

*shudders*

SEPT 23 1989

mahoganygas wrote: »

Denis O'Brien comparison in 3...2....1.....

the wrestling or the homosexuality?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Sleepy wrote: »

No problem with it at all tbh. I've always said that one of the first things I'd do if I won the Euromillions would be to instruct a solicitor to contact the editors of all the major Irish press informing them that should my name be published in association with the win, I'd have very deep pockets with which to destroy them.

But would you not lose because they haven't defamed you, and that it's an actual fact that you did win the lotto?

Peregrine

beach_walker wrote: »

Said that even though it's a "somewhat karmic end" the idea of billionaires being able to shut down media outlets is worrying. What say you, good people of AH?

That's very simplistic. He didn't 'shut down' Gawker; he helped people make cases against them — which was only possible because of the mountain of evidence and hoardes of victims against Gawker. This resulted in their likely demise.

'Billionaire brings criminals to justice' could be a similar simplification.

mahoganygas

Peregrine wrote: »

'Billionaire brings criminals to justice' could be a similar simplification.

Batman?

reason vs religion

It's definitely a concern. But in this case, it relies on a jury coming to that decision. So it's not as if Thiel could have **** down any outlet he wanted. What's more concerning to me is that it required a $10m legal suit to be able to achieve justice (assuming that the verdict is just).

seamus

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

But would you not lose because they haven't defamed you, and that it's an actual fact that you did win the lotto?

Only if you're suing for defamation

Every individual is entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Where the media publishes something which breaches that privacy, you can sue.

In general, the media reporting on where you are in public, is not a breach of privacy. Because you're in public.

However, Naomi Campbell won a pretty landmark case in this regard in the UK. One paper published pictures and a story about her arriving at and leaving a detox facility.
She argued that any individual was entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to such a sensitive matter. A court agreed and she was awarded damages.

In the lotto case, the same would apply. A newspaper camping outside the lotto offices waiting for people to come and go and then finding out and revealing the name of a winner would be considered a huge breach of the individuals right to privacy.

Diabhal Beag

It's like a fairytale ending with Hulkster getting his cock out while suffering stomach discomfort.

Sleepy

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

But would you not lose because they haven't defamed you, and that it's an actual fact that you did win the lotto?

What seamus said in relation to what they'd be sued for.

But you could engage in other, entirely legal actions that would cripple a newspaper pretty quick if you had the funds e.g. buy every issue for a week, ensuring that none of their advertisers ads were seen by the public / fund anyone else that has a grievance against the papers lawsuits etc. i.e. exactly what has happened in this instance.

Pro Hoc Vice

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

the wrestling or the homosexuality?

A gay wrestling sex tape? I can't un-think that.

Riesen_Meal

Strange that a gay man would bother funding the Hulkster with that kind of clout to pursue the case, he must really hate Gawker!

Wasn't the Hulk outed by his son (who killed his best mate in a drink driving incident) to be a massive racist?

Sure if hulk is a racist, chances are he is homophobic... but hey I don't know him personally...

galljga1

DrumSteve wrote: »

there's a Denis O'Brien sex tape?

*shudders*

Yeah, with Enda Kenny.

KomradeBishop

The idea that a billionaire should be able to anonymously bankroll lawsuits against media outlets (however shítty they are) that he has a grievance with, is quite a dangerous one.

His presence as a benefactor should not have been secret in the first place - we can't have billionaires randomly exerting power anonymously like that, against news media organizations, even for good causes, as it would enable them to do the same for ill reasons as well - it has to be out in the open.

Samaris

The world does not need a Hulk Hogan/Peter Thiel sex tape.

Actually, the world didn't need the HH one either.

Raging_Ninja

beach_walker wrote: »

It's now come out that billionaire dude Peter Thiel secretly funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker, which will in all likelihood bankrupt them. He did this as payback against them for outting him as gay a few years ago.



NYTimes article

My initial thoughts on hearing this were that it was bloody fantastic. Absolute gutter site got what was coming to them. Talking to a friend this morning and he was worried about this. Said that even though it's a "somewhat karmic end" the idea of billionaires being able to shut down media outlets is worrying. What say you, good people of AH?

The billionaire wouldn't have been able to "shut them down" if gawker hadn't hypocritically released the sex tape and then ignored a court order. If anything, this was the ethical way to go around doing things.

The really dangerous billionaires just buy their media critics and change the narrative.

Capt'n Midnight

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The idea that a billionaire should be able to anonymously bankroll lawsuits against media outlets (however shítty they are) that he has a grievance with, is quite a dangerous one.

But luckily that can't happen here.

It's the same law for rich or poor.


This is straight out of Waterford Whispers

Case against DOB dropped by using a loophole from the ancient law of champerty from 1634. Because the plaintiff hasn't the €10m it would take to pay the legal fees.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/judge-says-english-firm-cannot-fund-denis-o-brien-case-1.2617753


If only they apply that law to the ambulance chasers and compo culture that's driving insurance insane.

Pro Hoc Vice

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But luckily that can't happen here.

It's the same law for rich or poor.


This is straight out of Waterford Whispers

Case against DOB dropped by using a loophole from the ancient law of champerty from 1634. Because the plaintiff hasn't the €10m it would take to pay the legal fees.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/judge-says-english-firm-cannot-fund-denis-o-brien-case-1.2617753


If only they apply that law to the ambulance chasers and compo culture that's driving insurance insane.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/insurance-industry-misleading-public-over-reasons-for-higher-premiums-1.2660988

Funny the stats done back up what insurance companies claim.