Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what the hand-wringing about is about.
For example, it's illegal to film what's happening inside a slaughterhouse[1]. Some people are getting into trouble for filming cops[2].
I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo.
One can easily imagine a next generation of laws that will make it illegal to publish leaked documents, like those that Snowden or Wikileaks released.
[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaug... [2] http://www.copblock.org/1281/filmingpolice/
Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spycams in public bathrooms?
That strikes me as overreach. There's clearly a privacy question here, but the video is real, the words are real, and the events actually happened.
I've never seen the video. I don't care. Hogan's sex life is not interesting to me. People already masterbate to him.
I'm struggling to understand how a large amount of damage was dealt.
Isn't the alternative that every journalistic publication is above the law? If it were/is a free speech issue, then presumably it will be overturned on appeal?
Bollea's lawyers, as funded by Thiel, then decided to specifically drop the claim that would allow the damages payout to have been made from insurance. That's fairly vindictive.
Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtless on a gay cruise, I think it's fairly safe the rest of the world didn't need Valleywag to tell them of your homosexuality.
I think a lot of what Gawker has done is repugnant.
But this is analogous to me making a bad mistake (even breaking the law) and causing a lot of damage in a car accident. In the civil trials that follow, I'm sued for damages, distress, medical bills, and the like. All well and good, as I should be.
And I have insurance. As I should have.
Except you don't like me, because I previously attacked you verbally.
So you say "Actually, your Honor, we're dropping all claims that are proximate to the accident itself, and only suing for everything that happened after the fact." which ever-so-conveniently takes my insurance off the hook for its ability to pay.
And you only do this -after- being assured you'll win, so no-one can question your real motivation (apparently, there was all this damage and distress you suffered, and you want recompense. Except now you don't, because you're removing the only realistic mechanism for you to obtain any recompense).
I don't think "secret motivations" and secret financiers should be a part of an open court system (and indeed, secretly financing lawsuits used to be and in most places is still illegal because it raises more ethical and moral questions than it answers).
Does all that evidence matter? Shouldn't it be up to Theil when and where he outs himself instead of blog like Valleywag doing it for him?
When I go to the supermarket I see 500 headlines about famous people dating and breaking up and cheating on their partners, etc.
Sure it's a little lowbrow but do we really feel that rumors about Brad Pitt and Carrie Underwood's dating life are ok to publish but his aren't? Are Peter Thiel's relationships specifically somehow exempt from this aspect of the culture?
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not about evaluating everything said and determining if something is "in the public interest" in the United States. I think that focus on the "public interest" aligns more with European or Chinese cultural values.
If we are talking about personal values, I am glad we don't have censors in the US. Even if you and I can agree celebrity gossip probably has no value, what get defined as "not in the public interest" is too easy to be politically determined.
Agree, but it isn't illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberace_v_Daily_Mirror
http://www.theargus.co.uk/magazine/nostalgia/pastpresent/445...
1) It feels obviously wrong to me to have someone publicly outed like that. [like you say, the evidence doesn't matter]
2) It feels sketchy for a wronged person to retaliate by having a nontrivial player in written media shut down.
I find a private, rich entity shutting down a media company much scarier than a media company publishing facts.
But if you haven't, you really ought to read Benedict Evans piece on this:
> Again, though, Thiel has already won. He is fabulously wealthy and extremely influential, and say what you will about Gawker, the liberal democracy that made it possible for the companies Thiel has built and invested in to emerge depends on a free press; driving a publication to bankruptcy via lawyer fees may be legal by the letter of the law, and even deserved on a personal level, but it is in absolute violation of the spirit of the law and, I might add, a rather hypocritical — or is it ironic? — use of government by the avowed libertarian Thiel. What are more concerning, though — and implicit in this concern is a critique of libertarianism — are the second and third-order effects of Thiel’s approach.
> The most obvious second-order effect is that, as Felix Salmon writes, Thiel is providing a blueprint for the suppression of the press by the wealthy. But what concerns me — and what ought to concern Thiel, and all of the Silicon Valley elites celebrating his actions — are the third order effects. Specifically, Thiel’s actions are bringing into stark relief the fundamental weakness of old analog businesses like journalism relative to the incredible power and strength of the technology sector, and if companies follow Thiel’s example, the freedom that makes the emergence of said companies possible could quickly come under threat — and deservedly so.
I just don't fully agree. I see a powerful person doing what nobody else was willing to do - hold a powerful and abusive media organization to account for their actions. It's far from ideal. However, no ideal answer was on offer. In an ideal world, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.
To me, it is a stepwise improvement over the previous state of affairs. This reminds powerful people and organizations of something important - they are not the only ones with power.
Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises.
"Like" it doesn't come into it. I don't have a right to stop people doing what I don't "like".
I am all for free speech, but if we are going to have libel and defamation laws (which I have mixed feelings about), everyone should be allowed to avail themselves of the opportunity to obtain compensation from those who have 'wronged' them.
So this:
"Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises."
...is not saying that decisions have consequences. It is saying that people who make decisions you don't agree with have no right to privacy. You are arguing that a perceived moment of hypocrisy should somehow revoke a person's ability to make decisions.
There is zero morality in showbiz, it's all dares, counter-dares, lawyers and technicalities.
You fight fire with fire. I don't think it's unfair Gawker lost at their own game. Another one will fill the void anyway.
This is: you hit me with a car, i find out what your insurance covers, and then make sure that your insurance wont cover it.
So... Reporting on that seems like actual information that should be public? Compare to the pamela anderson tape, which was with her husband, was literally /stolen from their home/, and was sold for profit. Judge ruled that there wasnt anythig they could do.
Meanwhile, Thiel who was using hogan as a proxy has literally just demonstrated that you cant afford to post opinion pieces about tech billionaires and their occassionally delusional comments about how people should behave.
It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people).
This fetish is called wifesharing. It's not cheating, and it's not immoral. You may not personally like the idea, but calling someone's fetish immoral when all parties consent to the act is strange. Saying that it's in the public interest to know is offensive.
There are many sources that say this was a consensual act. I won't post these sordid articles here, but they are very easy to find.
This is equivalent to someone being gay, and someone else saying that it's in the public interest for their immoral acts to be made public.
FWIW, unless there's some real public interest beyond the prurient, I don't see why people should be able to publish anyone's private sex tapes without their consent. I would tend to say that the right to privacy should win in such cases.
Posting the video got them in trouble (for obvious reasons), and refusing to take it down played a big role in the final sentence (aka death).
So it's OK as long as they cross the "very" threshhold?
Also, just because it interests you and you're a member of the public does not make it a public interest
The only way this case is dangerous is if people start issuing bonds which are just a collection of partial settlements of still undecided lawsuits, funded by the purchase of said bond. This doesn't exist (as no banks are backing/issuing these bonds).
Its just media FUD due to them being held accountable for violating personal privacy laws.
If you are concerned the case cost to much here's a new issue for you to care about TORT REFORM.
It was my impression that Nick Denton told the court to fuck itself by ignoring the court order, and then doubled down in his deposition.
What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? That was a private video, probably made illegally.
Journalism is about making private things public when it suits the public. An individual (who is directly impacted by the revelations) should not be able to use the courts to crush that journalism.
Gawker has been repugnant and they shouldn't have done what they did to Hogan, but there could still be a bad precedent here.
For the record, he didn't say anything horrible about poor people. What he said was:
> There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. … My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
He simply stated the facts: there's nothing he can do to win over a certain fraction of the electorate without compromising his principles; thus there's no point focusing on it; thus he needs to spend his time as a candidate focusing on those who he can win over without compromising his principles.
When you're taped stating that you are not even going to try to help 47% of the population because of a stereotype I think that people have a valid point to be upset about.
How do you know that he was incorrect?
Basically, his story was the upper leadership were caught on tape making comments about how the rank and file of Libertarians were essentially manipulated fools to prevent them from disrupting the power of the Republican Party. That is the gist of his story, as best I can remember. I have some sympathy for libertarian principles, and conservative ones, and liberal ones, so I am not an ideologue. This incident is entirely possible, given what I understand of human nature and how society/politics actually operates.
I agree with Gawker being repugnant etc; the story seems essentially salacious and its fundamental purpose was to drive website traffic. Are sex scandals that important, in the big picture? Only when they involve national security or other such public interest issues - e.g. General David Petraeus and his carelessness. Where is the line where exposing hypocrisy is in the public interest versus the essential rights of a person?
Video of people having sex may be something the public is interested in, but it is not in the public interest. It's none of the public's business and the public should find more interesting things to be interested in.
1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/29/hulk-hogan-i...
And Romney had the right to sue.He didn't what you're point ?
And what about all the other people that were the victims of such an invasion of privacy, but didn't get a reward big enough to retire on thirty times over?
The core problem is that the "justice" system is so capricious that only a few victims get made whole, and when they do, it's bizarrely over the top.
Maybe Florida anti-SLAPP laws aren't good enough, I don't know. But it's a tough balance. Bollea's case was determine by a judge to have enough merit to take to court.
Bollea will probably lose on appeal. But he definitely has the right to his day in court.
I don't buy it. Courts routinely throw out frivolous suits, sometimes they even punish the people who start them.
Gawker lost because Gawker was wrong.
Yes Thiel has shakey ethics. Gawker violated the law AND ethics. Neither side was good in this case.
If you think court cases are too expensive PERIOD... Then start caring about Tort Reform.
Should the company be penalized? Most definitely. Was it worth shutting an otherwise okay running business? Questionably.
He has funded multiple suits against Gawker.
He wasn't giving a friend some money, he was explicitly searching out cases to take down a media company. That's a precedent.
After Thiel was revealed as the financier, some in the media saw an opportunity to re-caste the narrative in a way that they knew would appeal to our hatred of the rich and our fear for their abuse of power. The story became all about Thiel the alleged bully, the abuser of power, his petty grudge, etc etc. It was effective manipulation, just look at the comments here from those who think this 'sets a bad precedent'.
Never mind that Thiel's side was right and Gawker was wrong. Never mind that the mechanism employed to achieve justice here is basically the same mechanism that the ACLU uses.
There's no way to know, but my guess is that had Thiel stepped up in public a few years ago and said, "Gawker is a terrible gossip rag that needs to be taught a lesson -- contact me if they've wronged you too, and I'll help you mount a case", people would be less angry at him.
People don't like the idea that a shadowy cabal can run things behind the scenes without any public scrutiny.
Secondly, the ACLU does not generally appear vindictive. The ACLU looks to fund cases with a motive that people generally understand to be making things better for American society. Thiel may claim that removing Gawker from the face of the earth is a public service, but given the obvious history, that seems laughable. He appears vindictive, not altruistic.
That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta. Regardless of the outcome, many of us are dismayed that Thiel was able to weaponize the justice system using huge amounts of money.
> why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable?
The tape of Hogan had racist comments on it, which are arguably in the public interest (since Hogan is a business(man) and consumers should be able to know about his character). It was stupid and possibly illegal of them to include the sex part of the tape, but was it worth $100M? Did that part of the tape harm Hogan at all?
If Denton had published the tape 'for the public', he wouldn't have included the sex bit; we all know that this was classic Gawker clickbait. Denton obviously only cares about 'disclosure' when it gives him ammunition to use against his opponents, especially when he can profit off of it.
100% agree with this. Publication of the entire tape was not necessary. What would be the difference between publishing that a tape existed or a few screenshots vs the entire tape? Clicks.
Absolute nonsense. So if, let's say, Jennifer Lawrence had a tattoo on her butt that said something derogatory, suddenly leaking her nude photos is ok? I mean, she is a public figure and kids look up to her! What she does in the privacy of her home is absolutely public information, because of this. If they -really- only were doing it for the public's benefit they would have just had that snippet, with the audio; but they didn't, they published the full tape.
> That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta.
Do you think Hogan suing or anyone else suing for this type of thing is -not- a vendetta? Hogan was already wealthy, he didn't need Gawker's cash. He did it to take them down. Are we to not allow him to sue because that's technically a "vendetta?"
I mean, Gawker did a similar thing to Thiel by outing him to the public. That case would never hold up; so instead of going down that path he waited in the wings; I don't see how this is different than something like a class action where outside money is funding a suit.
People need to get the idea out of their head that "outside money" is inherently bad. The ACLU, FIRE, and tons of civil liberty organizations are "outside money." Be careful what you wish for.
But he funded a winning suit. He wasn't pestering them with this suit. It was a 100% legitimate suit. He funded a correct result.
You want scary? Even Hulk Hogan doesn't have enough money to fund a correct lawsuit.
Hence cheating on his wife was news, the public should have been informed, and unlike that fappening this wasnt stolen.
A news organization should not have the right to publish a sex tape to establish dubious morality. It also should not have the right to publish Hogan taking a straining shit if he appeared previously in a hemorrhoid commercial.
There are standards in civilized society.
There is a difference between protecting a group from being silenced by the Government and holding a private company liable when they release a sex tape under the pretense of freedom of speech/freedom of the press.
>I believe this will have a chilling effect on the media in the US.
As well it should...its not exactly a slippery slope: sex tapes don't become newsworthy just because the subject is a celebrity.
What if the sex might have been non-consensual (see: Dominique Strauss-Kahn)? What if the sex is between a public official and his employee (see: Bill Clinton)? What if the sex is illegal (see: Eliot Spitzer)?
The fact is that sex can be of interest to the public, which means video of that sex can also be of interest to the public.
How exactly is it "very different from adult people consensually enjoying themselves"?
Whataboutism. Hogan had the right to sue, he won, end of story. This isn't the government and a prosecution silencing Gawker, this is an individual against a corporation and he won.period.
There is another type of illegal sex, the kind involving minors. And I don't care how news worthy anyone would deem it to be, even the most hardcore Free Speech absolutist usually goes quite confronted with that conundrum. The public's interest doesn't create protected speech.
(An irony that the first site that came up was Gawker)
All I see is a report that it exists. Neither of the two links in the tweet were to stories showing the photos.
The publishing of secrets derived from an invasion of privacy is defensible by "free speech" if something of great moral/ethical imperative is gained. Publishing papers that reveal years of lying and misleading the American public about the true extent of the US government's involvement in Vietnam and surrounding countries, aka the Pentagon Papers? Defensible. Publishing a videotape without consent of someone having sex? Gawker can scream "free speech" till they're blue in the face; I think your average person is going to recognize a blatant violation of privacy occurred with little gained.
Look, I get it: free speech = awesome. But I don't think your average person sees free speech as an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
It went to Court and went through the due process, that process hasn't prior to this case and it wont after this case and the constitution remains the same.
If you publish, you deal with the repercussions, whether positive or negative.
The only thing I dislike is that it takes a billionaire to help a millionaire financially to give the case a fair chance while the less wealthy are powerless and without aid to even start a similar battle.
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-sued...
The story they reported was 100% correct, but they were still sued by the billionaire political donor that was the subject of the story. The case was eventually thrown out of court, yet it still cost Mother Jones $2.5m to defend themselves. That was enough to drive them to the brink of bankruptcy.
That you have to have serious cash to hold a news site accountable? We are not talking about a charity, Gawker is a multi-million dollar business.
I am glad Thiel did this and I hope it has a chilling effect on the media in the US. They weren't printing news, they were going for titillation that just happened embarrass someone they didn't like. Corruption in political figures, fine, but not this crud.
The only thing stopping Gawker being crushed before was the fact it had a multi million dollar corporation behind it, and was happy to flat out ignore any complaints they didn't like. Now someone with more money comes along, they get smashed to a pulp and everything somehow changes.
I'm with David Friedman on this.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/05/ot51-alien-vs-threadato...
Making tort claims marketable solves multiple problems:
1. The tort victim who can’t afford a lawyer. He may be able to get a law firm to take the case for a share of the award, but …
2. How does he know which law firm will do a good job, which do a bad job, which sell him out for some covert payment? If he can sell his claim, all he needs to know is which firm offers him the highest price.
I know some liberals think libertarians are gaga for markets but it seems like this would serve their egalitarian goals as well. Personally I had never considered the potential for the first point but now it seems obvious.
What if this organisation could publish any dirt on you, could publish your most intimate pictures or details and if you were suing them, they would be fined only $10k, which they wouldn't care about because they make a lot more money abusing people?
I would say this would be justice and ordinary citizens being helpless against big business.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/sentencing-la...
Thiel had an issue with Gawker, Thiel should have taken it to Gawker.
This is incredibly common, e.g. it's basically the entire job description of the ACLU. Why is it different in this case?
The ACLU is a charitable organization, and its cases have an ideological consistency. Thiel was just trying to find anything he could on Gawker (or just bury them in frivolous lawsuits if he couldn't). The cases didn't have any ideological consistency except "kill Gawker".
The Gizmodo article that Thiel thinks is worth suing Gawker over: http://gizmodo.com/5887480/the-inventor-of-email-did-not-inv...
Still, Gawker is/was big enough that several frivolous lawsuits would've been unlikely to cause bankruptcy if none of them resulted in an adverse judgment. I have to think Thiel's goal was more to fire multiple shots and hope one finds its mark.
No, it's more nuanced than that. What the ACLU is saying is that there's a difference between Hulk Hogan (the public figure) and Terry Bollea (the person), and that the jury found the video wasn't about the public figure.
As for me, I can appreciate that this feels flimsy - how can one know where the line is drawn? - yet I think the distinction exists in practice and it'd be a failure of justice to deny it.
Hulk Hogan’s verdict will likely be overturned by the Florida District Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. That court, in earlier overturning the trial judge’s grant of a preliminary injunction to stop the publication of the video before trial, already indicated its sympathies to the First Amendment defense. The appellate court held that (1) Hogan is a public figure, as a wrestler and reality television star; (2) Hogan has already discussed his family and sex life in the media; (3) sexually explicit content does not nullify speech’s newsworthiness, (4) the posted video and commentary are linked to a matter of public concern; and, importantly, (5) Gawker carefully published only a small excerpt of the sex tape, not the entire thing. Although a ruling on a preliminary injunction does not bind the Florida court of appeals now that it can view all of the evidence, the appellate court seems poised to disregard the trial court’s First Amendment decisions, all issued without full written orders.
http://overlawyered.com/2016/05/champerty-maintenance-explai...
It should concern you that it took money from an outside source to get an alledged wrong by a massive company to litigated in front of a jury. That should be very concerning.
As for Thiel and Gawker, they're both bullies, and bullies beating the shit out of each other is just fine by me.
"emotional comfort of a billionaire"
That is very dismissive. Are people worth less to you when they have more money?
Yes
They knew who they were working for. Lie down with dogs, etc.
There is no way Hogan wasn't a public figure. viz him talking to Howard Stern about his sex life.
Gawker had, under previous First Amendment jurisprudence, the right to post that tape. Most free speech lawyers assume it will be reversed on appeal.
This is completely separate from whether they should have posted that tape.
If the National Enquirer broke the law and was sued, do you really think it would affect decision making at the NYT or Washington Post?
https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan...
Think tanks have been subpoenaed over AGW skepticism:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenae...
Media organizations have been prevented from reporting on Hillary Clinton during a political campaign:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
This sort of thing has been common practice for a long time.
The only real difference is that this time the media sees the victim as being part of their tribe and the attacker being part of an opposing tribe.
Obscenity Fighting words Defamation (includes libel, slander) Child pornography Perjury Blackmail Incitement to imminent lawless action True threats Solicitations to commit crimes
I know people love to protect freedom of speech and I'm on that bandwagon, but please let's remember just because it appears freedom of speech is being violated doesn't mean it is (e.g. in cases were most people don't support something and it appears the mob rule is triumph, it should indeed be sign that something may be wrong but let's not use that sign as enough evidence that free speech is violated.) Sometimes it's not the freedom of speech that is being violated, but some person's rights.
On the one hand it's "A rich billionaire with pockets deeper than a media organization, funding a lawsuit"
On the other hand it's "A media organization that posts what they want because it's too costly to sue them"
Perhaps the precedent is "Don't try to make a quick buck posting sex tapes without permission just because you don't think someone can afford to come after you"?
It's not as black and white as most free speech and freedom of the press issues.
Edit: grrrrr autocorrect
Peter Thiel funding a lawsuit against a company he has a personal grudge against is a scary thing. What if the Koch Brothers decide to start funding lawsuits against Nature or Science magazines that publisher articles about global warming? Even if none of the lawsuits win, they could shut down these publications because of the legal bills involved in the court cases.
People celebrating this are in my opinion incredibly myopic.
That would be scary but nothing was stopping them from doing that before.
In the case of Gawker they lost in court because they were wrong, they didn't run out of money due to attrition.
Well, no, some of the sites under the Gawker umbrella were quite excellent. That's one more thing to lay at the feet of Nick Denton; his irresponsible behavior is going to take down some pretty good journalism along with the cesspool that was Gawker proper.
If those articles were somehow actually legally libellous, that would be fine. But that seems unlikely.
But also I hated Gawker, so, difficult to feel too sorry about this particular development.
that if you say something, you stand by the consequences, financial and all?
that people take responsibility for what they say is not a new development.
new journals are free to start up and take the place of gawker. nothing here stops them from doing so.
The problem is that any media outlet, if they've been around long enough, has probably published something you could convince a jury was slanderous or libelous or defamatory or whatever. So the precedent I think OP is concerned about is: if you're a rich person and you don't like something a media outlet writes about you or your startup or your pet issue of the week or whatever, it's now been proven effective for you to troll through that publisher's history in search of something juicy to pay someone to sue over, and use it to take that entire company out of the water, forever, even if the thing you're suing over has nothing to do with the thing you found objectionable in the first place, which may be perfectly journalistically legitimate and legal.
Or, concretely: who's going to want to write anything nasty about Peter Thiel or his interests now, since he's proven a willingness to go to great lengths to find dirt to kill companies?
gawker played themselves.
> who's going to want to write anything nasty about Peter Thiel
you can write nasty things about Thiel but remember rule #1: don't play yourself.
[1] http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people
That's not happening here.
Not advocating anything here really. Just pointing out that the "first amendment only applies to government actions" argument isn't valid in this case.
I for one am overjoyed with this news and have no concern whatsoever that it will be the death knell of legitimate journalism. Voyeuristic muck like Gawker makes society ugly.
It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK.
I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and close down unfavorable media outlets. I believe this will have a chilling effect on the media in the US.