[tdburn]

There is a big difference here. In China the press is censored by the state. In this case Gawker was allowed full freedom by the state to print what they chose. But the individual who felt his privacy or whatever was damaged sought redress through a Civil trial. The press has many protections for what they write, where an individual has little ability to fight back when they have been wronged. And it takes lots of money to fight such a case, and I bet many such cases fail. And even having a large backer does not guarantee success. This is not a perfect system, but it is not censorship.

[sputnikus]

Charities and nonprofits fund trials againts wealthy opponents all the time. To give people, who can afford it, a chance defend their rights in a trial. Jury and judge make a decision. But when someone with money does the same thing, everybody lose their minds. He only funded Hulk Hogan, his attorneys etc. He didn't bought judge or jury.

[smt88]

My first issue is the "who can afford it" part. People shouldn't get more justice when they're wealthier and less when they're poorer.

My second issue is that more money gives a plaintiff access to legal tricks that can overwhelm an opponent with less money. One example is to bury the opponent with discovery.

My final problem is that Thiel is not using the justice system to get justice for himself. He's sticking his nose into another person's complaint. That isn't how our courts were intended to work.

[sputnikus]

It's still no different from charities and nonprofits, they don't get justice for themselfs either. Thiel saw, that Hogan has a strong case and he's willing to fight for it (but doesn't have enough money to do so). [1] "One example is to bury the opponent with discovery." You think Gawker is so poor it can't afford first class lawyers? Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[1] http://observer.com/2016/05/peter-thiels-reminder-to-the-gaw...

[argonaut]

Let's not ignore that Gawker had top lawyers too. Remember, it's really the $140 million verdict that's going to kill Gawker. Not the legal fees which I'm sure are well under $10 million (and Hogan - maybe Thiel? - would be on the hook for if he lost)

[tsmffh]

Seems like your problem is with the legal system, not Thiel. Which is completely fair. "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

[bitinn]

What I think: Thiel saw an opening in both Gawker's reputation and the legal system, and made a deadly move.

And to clarify, I am not equating this case to censorship, but rather to setup some context that we have seen much worse :)

But what troubles me is really how SV response to this case:

- There are no better ways and so be it.

This is what Chinese call: the limit of democracy and freedom.

And Thiel get VCs to agree with him in this case. Even though I believe many VCs hold different view on democracy and liberty.

So I am personally troubled by their reactions.

[argonaut]

The reason many people don't think there is a better way is because this case involves two opposing forces of the same principle, free speech.

On one hand, media outlets should ideally feel un-intimidated in publishing stories. On the other hand, people should be allowed to support causes with money. Both are widely considered in America to fall under freedom of speech. So it's balancing act. There is no optimal solution, there are only tradeoffs.

This is also ignoring the facts that are highly favorable to Thiel's case: what Gawker did really was illegal and reprehensible, and also let us ignore the fact that Peter Thiel really did not bury Gawker under a mountain of legal fees - the verdict is what did Gawker in, not the legal fees which I'm sure are less than $10 million (Gawker can afford that)