| > What if he gets angry at politico.com because they write articles criticising his favourite politician? OK, what if Politico.com doesn't do anything illegal or actionable subsequent to that? The only reason Thiel had the power he had over Gawker is that Gawker did something which was actually, legally wrong after it wronged him in a non-actionable fashion. Unless you have both of those elements, Thiel would have been powerless to redress the grievance he had in any very quick fashion. He could have done other things, but Gawker did him the favor of stepping onto the firing range after they painted the target on themselves. > The only barrier to complete control of the media by a select number of plutocrats is that the specific case he used (the sex tape) was so egregious that you won't be able to make similar cases against serious publishers. Rephrase: "The only barrier to complete control of the media by a select number of plutocrats is that most of the media can refrain from doing flagrantly illegal bullshit." > And that's why this article is relevant: it's about some guy's obsession with being recognised as the inventor of e-mail. If he wins, ruining any publisher would become a whole lot easier overnight. He isn't going to win. People who can dispute his claims totally are still alive (OK, one of the main people has died, but you don't have to be the inventor to disprove this yahoo) and plenty of records have been kept. Thiel is funding a loser of a case here, and, despite what some people believe, an expensive lawyer can't save a loser of a case. |