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.
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).