Weird, because in Gawker's case, he didn't have a case for libel or slander. They outed him as gay. I considered their actions despicable, but they didn't lie and that's why he didn't have a case. And that's why he had to use Hulk Hogan to exact revenge, which goes to show that a single guy with too much money can essentially reign unchecked in today's America.

That's not good, no matter if you happen to agree politically with said guy with too much money at this particular point in time.

In your ideal society, you would rather see Hogan lose in court for lack of money?

Ideally all cases would be decided on their merits irrespective of funding. But if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped?

What is frightening about Thiel’s involvement case is the playbook: destroy media companies that have been critical or embarrassed you, by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous.

> if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped?

Maybe. Thiel funded the destruction of Gawker for their crime against Hogan. He probably wouldn't've funded it if he hadn't had a personal grudge against Gawker, sure, but Hogan's lawsuit was entirely legitimate. If there hadn't been a legitimate lawsuit against Gawker, only illegitimate ones, would Thiel have funded those? We really can't say.

> by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous.

Did he actually do this? (all and any, even if frivolous)

If he extracts his revenge by helping people that legitimately believe that they had their rights trampled seek justice, is it not a net benefit to society regardless of his personal motives?

In my ideal society, lawyers wouldn't cost and arm and a leg or at least government would make sure individuals could sue corporations if there's a solid case.

Essentially, the bigger issue here is that Gawker could hide behind a bunch of lawyers even when they knew they were doing something despicable. Take that away, and things get fairer pretty quickly.

Sounds shiny. How would government determine if there’s a solid case? Some kind of formal hearing?

> yelling fire in a theater

This is not the current standard. You can yell fire in a crowded theater all you want (probably). We no longer use the "clear and present danger" standard, instead Brandenburg v. Ohio changed it to be "imminent lawless action"[1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#the-decisi...

> like yelling fire in a theater

I hate that this example is always used. Yelling fire in a theator for a laugh isn't "expressing ideas". It's a kind of social fraud: in some sense we depend on each other to make society work and someone shouting that our lives are in danger when they are not is violating this trust. Not by expressing some philosophical ideal but by exclaiming something they know to be false.

Yelling fire in a theater expresses the idea that there is a fire in the theater, whether it's true or not. It's a good example because it's a pretty bad and at best worthless thing to express, and because it has been used before (Schenck v. United States) when free speech has been abridged where the speech in question wasn't categorically not covered, just dangerous and unmerited enough to be considered illegal anyway. It is considered a well motivated abridgment.

There's nothing about the constitutional idea of free speech that says it has to be of philosophical value or true.

> yelling fire in a theater

Just googled this. Thanks for bringing it up, I hadn't heard about this case before.

this example was originally made by a judge who locked up Jewish protestors to an American war for handing out anti war pamphlets...

there’s a difference between true free speech and even what the us government considers free speech..