We may never know just why mogul Peter Thiel hates media site Gawker so much. The operating assumption is that Thiel hates Gawker for calling him out in 2007 for living in a glass closet and that fellow Facebook billionaire Sean Parker talked him into doing something about it. Whatever the reason, vendetta is the only way to describe Thiel’s $10 million investment in Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker.
As vendettas go, it’s been a success. Hogan won an absurd $140 million judgment against Gawker for leaking a sex tape. And defending Gawker isn’t always an easy task. As a site, it runs the gamut from snark to skeevy to hilarious and brilliant. High on the list of examples of the former was its story a year ago naming a high-profile married CFO for trying to arrange an assignation with a male escort. The story created a well-deserved Twitter storm and was eventually taken down.
Yet Thiel’s decision to secretly fund Hogan’s lawsuit is more than distasteful. It’s dangerous. Here are five reasons why Thiel’s attack on Gawker is a big threat, not just to the media, but to society in general.
1. Thiel is feeding a trend for rich people to buy the legal outcome they want
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
In a society where financial inequality is a huge problem, the one percent are using their money in attempts to drive pesky media out of business or at least tone down their reporting on the rich and powerful. Thiel is just one example of an out-of-touch billionaire throwing his wealth around to get what he wants. An even more disgusting example is the case of Mother Jones magazine, which was sued by a major Republican donor, Frank VanderSloot, after it ran an unflattering article about him (which included mention of VanderSloot’s antigay stance). The suit, which Mother Jones won decisively, cost millions and was clearly aimed at punishing the magazine and driving it out of existence. If you’re rich enough, you can bankroll nuisance suits that will force your target to fold and or least suffer substantial losses. Peter, there a hundreds of great causes that could do amazing things with a fraction of the $10 million you have sunk to defend Hulk Hogan and bring down a media company.
2. Thiel is deciding what’s the public good
In the realm of false equivalency, a lot of chatter about Thiel’s funding argues that the ACLU and the Sierra Club do that sort of thing all the time. But that’s a bogus (and laughable) argument. Those entities are organizations with a public mission. You may disagree with that mission, but the organization pursues legal cases consistent with it. It doesn’t underwrite a lawsuit in which it doesn’t have an ideological stake out of personal spite. Yet Thiel is acting like those organizations in using the legal system to determine what’s the public good. Problem is, in Thiel’s universe it’s whatever he sees the as the public good–for him first and foremost and for his business class.
3. Secrecy is not the same as privacy
One huge difference between the ACLU and Thiel is that the ACLU doesn’t hide its participation in lawsuits. Thiel, of course, lurked cowardly behind the scenes for a long time before fessing up. In his interview with The New York Times, Thiel makes a big point about how Gawker routinely violated people’s privacy. But Thiel seems to think that privacy and secrecy are the same thing. It’s one thing to have your personal information blasted across the internet, but it’s entirely another to be wealthy enough to shape the public agenda and expect that no one should know you’re doing so. It’s a troubling trend that is poisoning politics. In Thiel’s case, perhaps it’s a lingering affection for the closet.
4. It’s a dangerous precedent for the press
Thiel seems to think that Gawker is a unique case and that his actions have no implications beyond that single site. “It’s precisely because I respect journalists that I do not believe they are endangered by fighting back against Gawker,” Thiel told the Times. He couldn’t be more wrong. For a fact, news leaders across the country are shuddering at the outcome of the Hogan and praying that a higher court reverses it. Of course suits likes this send a chill through the media because they establish that rich people can bring suits for whatever personal reason they choose in those cases where judges fail to respect the literal meaning of the First Amendment and slap(p) these cases down before they cause ruin to speech.
5. Thiel is a hypocrite
Okay, this isn’t dangerous, just obvious. In a thudding irony, Thiel is a major funder of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Apparently, it’s only the journalists he likes. As perhaps the country’s highest-profile libertarian, Thiel should be allowing the marketplace to sort out free speech issues. If Thiel and Gawker have spend millions on expensive lawyers, remember that the courts–and taxpayers–must absorb the cost of frivolous score-settling lawsuits during a time when the the poor lack access to the legal system to address wrongs. As Nick Denton said, promote more speech, not less, which Thiel is quite capable of without resorting to litigation. But then again, why let the marketplace do the work when money can do it much more quickly? On one point, at least, Thiel is consistent. He’s going to the GOP presidential convention as a delegate for Donald Trump.
The lying, litigious Trump, of course, wants to make it easier to sue media for libel.
mastik8
That was a lovely collection of words that described something that’s been happening for all of recorded human history – as if it were new. Doesn’t make it right but it certainly doesn’t make it new.
Xzamilio
To paraphrase Amy Poehler’s Hillary Clinton line from SNL when she was playing Hillary Clinton across from Tina Fey this is “an issue which I am frankly surprised to hear people suddenly care about.”
ScaryRussianHeather
1. Are you trying to pretend that people without extreme wealth could EVER defend themselves against the trash of Gawker?
2. A JURY decided. Not Thiel. If you don’t like the legal system then why didn’t you rant against Obama not addressing tort reform with Obamacare?
3. What are you even talking about? Hulk Hogan never gave Gawker permission to leak a private tape.
4. The media deserves some chilling. But this is not a SLAPP suit in any way. And BTW it’s PRAY not PREY but ironic grammatical error.
5. You obviously don’t know anything about legal defamation elements. And LOL how is GAWKER “the marketplace” but defending yourself against them using a JURY isn’t?? Doesn’t even make sense.
GC1985
Peter Thiel is bankrolling a monster (Trump). Trump is someone only interested in power. That is what makes Thiel and others like him so dangerous not just to our community, but to the entire nation. We have an obligation to see that Thiel and all his ilk fail miserably in November. The staked are that high. If Trump wins, the entire economy will collapse and the country will descend into chaos. We cannot afford such a fate.
ScaryRussianHeather
@GC1985: HUH? Where and when did Theil “bankroll a monster”. Not that there’s any problem with that. But factually inaccurate.
Your assertions are ridiculous. It’s the open borders globalists who’ve forced the USA into it’s degrowthing phase that is destroying our economy and country. HENCE they hysteria against him.
I also assume you’re not even American if you don’t understand Congress and the Executive Branch roles and responsibilities. I guess that’s because Congress ABDICATED it’s responsibilities by funding Obama’s entire agenda for 8 years and not using it’s power. Because Congress is FILLED WITH GLOBALISTS.
But you keep on going pushing for your own destruction.
MCHG
We know exactly why Thiel hates Gawker, as he’s been refreshingly honest about his vendetta. 1) they outed him. I don’t know why any media company would operate under the assumption that robbing someone of agency over their personal life would go without objection, given that outing has been a contentious issue since the 80’s. 2) their zealous, agenda driven brand of “journalism” hurt people who Thiel was friendly with. It also hurt people who had a legitimate case against Gawker (like Hogan) but who were not wealthy enough to mount a legal challenge on their own. Let’s keep in mind that if Gawker had not broken the law and violate a court order to take down the Hogan tape, we wouldn’t be talking about any of this. On your other points:
1. Theil is not trying to bankrupt Gawker with a phony court case, as was the case with Mother Jones. He joined an existing court case with legal precedent and eventually the courts decided to grant Hogan more money than he had asked for.
2. The point about public good makes no sense. Anyone is allowed to pursue the cause of their choice, so long as it is in alignment with the law. I would argue that aiding someone who was wronged (not just in my eyes but in the eyes of the law) to mount a legal challenge they would otherwise not be able to fund, is in the public good.
3. Of course secrecy and privacy are not the same thing. Secrecy refers to an attitude while privacy refers to legal rights, like the right to do with your money what you wish without announcing it to the world. It might be a lingering affection for the closet (such a classy attack by the way) in that some people believe that what is done with their own property (body or money) is none of anybody’s business.
4. It should be a wake up call to the media. Freedom of speech is not absolute. If you break the law (as Gawker did in the Hogan case), you cannot hide behind the 1st Amendment, nor can you expect a society that has grown tired of homophobic antics (like outing) disguised as journalism to do anything other than play the world’s smallest violin while you go down in flames.
5. The marketplace does not get to decide what constitutes a violation of the law. Courts do, and in the Hogan case they did. How many times has the gay community made the case that their civil rights should not be up for a vote? Why would it be any different when it comes to Hogan’s right to privacy?
6. Think what you will about Trump, but the current limitations on the ability of public figures to sue for defamation are absurd. Go look them up yourself. When you depend entirely on your reputation to make a living, it makes zero sense that it should be harder for you to sue for libel or slander than for a regular nobody.
GC1985
@ScaryRussianHeather: Learn some proper grammar and some logic, Drumpz supporter. Donald Trump has tax plans that would send this country into economic ruin. Factually inaccurate? Where exactly? Do you have anything other than inane right-wing drivel? You are clueless. Trump is going to close to borders and do what exactly? Stop trade? Do you realize that closing borders will mean the death of this country?
Someone like you has no clue about government or history. You espouse paranoid ridiculous BS that has no basis in reality. Trump is a lunatic who has some of the most destructive and dangerous viewpoints. He has pissed off too many people to get elected anyways.
People like you are the problem in America. You can’t even form a coherent sentence without stumbling your own words. Your ideas are a jumbled mess. You are the one pushing total collapse and destruction.
GC1985
I would also like an explanation as to what was inaccurate about my post. Mindless ignorant ranting and broken sentences do not count. My post was highly accurate about Trump. Trump would mean the death of this nation. The Trump hysteria is based on delusions and smoke. Trump is a liar much like a snake oil salesman. You are being conned.
scott747
@ScaryRussianHeather: Just one question re: “Globalists”- So then the USA is not a part of the globular object that continue to revolve around the sun and are you referring to the “one world multiculturalists” when you speak of “Globalists’?
GC1985
@scott747: The troll doesn’t know what it is talking about. And Trump is a man of nefarious business dealings throughout the world and extensive ties to organized crime. But then again the GOP is directly linked to Chinese triads through the Adelson connection. I wouldn’t want to support a party tied to extortion, illegal gambling and murder.
When I see someone like that support Trump I know they have no clue what they are talking about.
I see the troll questioned if I am a citizen too lol. I vote and am a citizen.
Chris
As usual, the media turn a lawsuit about their prying into someone’s right to privacy (Hulk Hogan had consensual sex with someone in a setting in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy) into something about freedom of the press. No matter how much the media want to make this about the people who are supporting either side of this lawsuit, it’s not about them nor about their personal beliefs. It’s about the line that the press cross when they are pretending that something is in the public’s interest but instead is them abusing their first-amendment “freedom” at the expense of someone’s fourth-amendment right to privacy.
Get over yourselves.
MarionPaige
The biggest problem with defending one’s self against Gawker, as previously indicated, is Gawker Media’s elaborate corporate structure of multiple LLCs and its array of offshore Cayman Island and Hungarian business entities. Things structured like Gawker media are Domain Name Portfolios and Drug Cartels.
Why does a seemingly simple array of idiot blogs need to be structured like a drug cartel?
The other side effect of Gawker is all the idiot little queens out there who think they can write anything because they have journalism degrees i.e. this raging psycho determined to be the Gawker of Gay Porn.
MarionPaige
@Chris: “It’s about the line that the press cross when they are pretending that something is in the public’s interest but instead is them abusing their first-amendment “freedom” at the expense of someone’s fourth-amendment right to privacy. ”
Really, it has to be more about the definition of “Press” in re the founding fathers’ intent. Just as there is debate on the definition of “armed militia” in re the right to bear arms, not every psycho queen with a degree in journalism should be considered “THE PRESS”. BTW,
Wasn’t the previous owner of Queerty stung by multiple lawsuits?
Paco
The only danger I see from the deserved smack down of Gawker is that click bait journalists will start being held accountable for their hit pieces that serve no purpose other than to destroy people and generate clicks.
As another commenter pointed out, it was a jury that sided with Hulk Hogan. Thiel had no control over the jury. And how exactly was the amount of the judgement absurd? The jury clearly wanted to send a message that such gross invasions of privacy should come with a huge price tag. If Gawker goes bankrupt, it will be the fault of Gawker and its lack of journalistic integrity about Hulk Hogan’s right to privacy during an intimate moment.
But keep playing with that smoke and those mirrors to try and redirect attention away from what Gawker did and how a jury, and not Thiel, awarded a judgement to Hulk Hogan for the invasion of his privacy.
joe
Sorry Queerty, I’m with Thiel GOOD FOR HIM! someone fucked with him personally, so he gave it back. Gawker didn’t have any rules they just went to fuck him over. if anyone every outed me I’d strike back as hard and as best as I could and if that involved outside help so be it. the guy got tired of being pushed around and he struck back ..PERFECTLY $$$$
MarionPaige
Also, take note that the guy who actually wrote the post at Gawker about Hulk Hogan HAS NO ASSETS, Hulk Hogan showed that the guy who posted the sex clip at Gawker has a negative net worth due to outstanding student loans. It’s like the ultimate drive-by hit,
A destructive invasion of privacy by some clown with a degree in journalism and no assets. So, even if you spend $10 million dollars suing him and you win, you just end up out of $10 million.
In general, these people claiming to be “journalists and writers” are not wealthy people, even if you win a lawsuit against them, you get nothing. For example, it isn’t clear that Gawker’s US Entities have any assets
GC1985
@joe: People have a right to expose him as a fraud. Gawker could have handled things far differently, but as long as someone as crooked as Thiel is promoting bigoted policies it is all fair game. And the idea that Thiel was outed is a bunch of malarkey. He was outed years ago and not be Gawker.
BriBri
Sounds like a bitter queen that can’t get dick.
onthemark
@joe: ” if anyone every [sic] outed me I’d strike back as hard and as best as I could”
Oooooh. Hey joe, YOU’RE GAY! LOL. I just outed you. Wanna sue me?
The difference is, Peter Thiel is a public figure (that’s fancy legal talk for “famous person”), so in the U.S. legal system if not the British system, he just has to sit there and take it and fume if someone calls him gay and it’s, you know, TRUE and stuff. Truth is an absolute defense against “libel.” It’s really sad, though, that you think it’s so libelous to be called gay.
On the other hand, I guess I’m not exactly thrilled that Peter Thiel is on “our” team!
onthemark
@MarionPaige: You’re often kind of a flake, but you’re doing good work here. Are you in law school? Maybe you should consider it. 🙂
lcandela123
@ScaryRussianHeather: Agreed. This Queerty article is nonsense. The writer’s main beef seems to be that he deeply resents rich people. Well, tough luck. Thiel can spend his money as he wants to.
joe
@onthemark: my point, as i’m sure most here understood, is that if someone attacked me, in order to hurt me, embarrass me or otherwise try to harm me, verbal or otherwise, then i would strike back in the best way i could. just because someone is a public figure and just because something is true…doesnt mean it cant hurt. there are things in my life that are true and others might not find it a big deal, but i find it a big deal and i’d be hurt if those things got out. regardless if i was famous or not. i’m glad he crushed gawker i just hope it sticks…
onthemark
@joe: Yes, legally it IS different because you are NOT famous. You are not a “public figure” so you fall under a different set of legal rules.
onthemark
@joe: I was being ironic for effect and apparently should have made that clear. 🙂 You don’t need to over-identify with Thiel here because, yes, you DO fall under a different legal standard. You’re not a public figure.
GC1985
@lcandela123: Deeply resents rich people? I don’t think so. Just those who don’t work for their money and steal for a living (like Thiel and Trump). Thanks for agreeing with the right wing troll. It just goes to show how out of touch you right wingers are with reality.
GC1985
@joe: A public figure like Thiel is causing unprecedented damage to our community and is damaging us further by supporting a reactionary bigot like Donald Trump. STop trying to equate public figures to private citizens.
MarionPaige
IT MUST BE MENTIONED also that Peter Thiel, a guy with a lot of assets (and therefore a guy with a lot to lose), reacted legally to Gawker. Thiel had his lawyers guide him in everything he did with respect to funding lawsuits.
Gawker getting hacked was, more likely than not, “someone else’s” response to Gawker Posts. And, it can be argued that Gawker getting hacked did a lot more damage to Gawker than Thiel in that the hack destroyed Gawker’s delusions of making its shit blogging software a competitor to the likes of wordpress and drupal.
Nick Denton was all set to pimp Gawker as a Technology company until Gawker was hacked. And,
refresh my memory here …
what billionaire was it that Gawker was claiming was on a gaycation with some young boys right before Gawker was hacked? It definitely wasn’t Thiel. And, Gawker has rarely mentioned that billionaire’s name since it was hacked.
midknightryder13
@Chris: Well said. There is a difference between “need to know”, which is what the founders had in mind when they referred to “the public has a right to know”, and “WANT to know”.
I realize that with our current “live our lives online” mindset, the concept of privacy is positively alien, but I, for one, believe that some things should be kept private. Not because I’m ashamed of them, by why should anyone else CARE? (Talk about prurient interest.) I mourn the death of MYOB. And, I for one, refuse to let it go without a fight.
I have enough trouble running my own life and being there for friends and loved ones to be interested in the random goings-on in some stranger’s life who I have been maneuvered into somehow believing I “know” simply because they entertain or inform me. Because I recognize them? Big deal. I recognize my neighbors, too. And the mailman. And some of the people who work at the supermarket across the street. One of them even lives in the same apartment complex I do. But, do we “know” each other? I don’t think he actually knows my name.
HERE’S an idea. Tell us about things that ACTUALLY affect or can improve out lives. Oh, THAT’S right — that’s journalism. And REAL journalism is BORING. It’s TEDIOUS. Not the stories, the work involved to GET the stories. And it is WORK. There is very little sexy about it.
GC1985
@midknightryder13: This isn’t about you or your distorted concept of what the founding fathers said. This is exposing blatant hypocrisy in the Republican party. This has nothing to do with you or your neighbors. We are talking about a hypocrite (Thiel) who has extensive ties to the Republican party. And yes, reporting his hypocrisy is very important. We can expose him as a fraud.
Invader7
Ms. Thiel is a VERY vindictive queen. He’s a hypocrite. Alright for everyone else to be outed.But God forbid, if his closet door got blown off it’s hinges. He’s a lunatic control freak.