[JimmyAustin]

Peter Thiel (worth 2.5b) destroyed Gawker with a contribution of 10m to Hulk Hogan's legal fund.

If Bezos contributed a similar proportion of his fortune (112b), he would be contributing 448m. Not only is the National Enquirer about to be in the shitfight of its life, but every single other lawsuit it's going to be facing will be armed to the teeth with amazing legal talent.

Couldn't have happened to nicer people.

[Novashi]

Here's the cherry on top: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1093654471157170177

AMI probably just broke their non-prosecution agreement with the SDNY

[everdev]

Reminds me of the Fyre documentary on Netflix and how he went back to scamming while he was on trial.

If you build a livelihood through morally corrupt means it's apparently hard to stop even after you get caught.

Not surprised to see Rodger Stone mixed up in this either while he's awaiting trial. Apparently, he knows Jeff Bezos' mistress' brother who is the prime suspect in obtaining the photos:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bezos-investigators-question-t...

[tptacek]

What AMI did is unlikely to be criminal.

[comex]

From the New York Penal Law article 135.60 (AMI is headquartered in New York):

> A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, [..] by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

[..]

> 5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;

[..]

> Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

[tptacek]

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/10936583665834229...

[comex]

> 15/ To make this out as an extortion case, prosecutors would have to argue that the claims Bezos had against AMI constituted "money or property" of Bezos and that the whole settlement proposal was merely window dressing for the extortion of Bezos by AMI.

I’m not sure what they’re quoting from, but the New York law I quoted is not limited to attempts to obtain “money or property”. One federal law that might otherwise apply, 18 USC § 875, does have such a limitation, though not in those terms; it requires “intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value”.

[tptacek]

Coercion is a misdemeanor.

[thaumasiotes]

Assuming Jeff Bezos' quotes of their emails are accurate, it seems like a pretty open-and-shut case of criminal blackmail. I looked at Wikipedia's tiny entry for "blackmail in the United States", and it is definitely not federal blackmail. I looked at the state of Washington's legal code... ( https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.110 )

WA defines "extortion" pretty sparely as "knowingly to obtain or attempt to obtain by threat property or services of the owner, and specifically includ[ing] sexual favors". It is a class C felony when the threat is "(e) To expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or (f) To reveal any information sought to be concealed by the person threatened". (see https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.130 )

So it seems pretty safe to say that AMI's behavior is a class C felony under Washington law _if_, by making the threat, they were attempting to obtain any "services" from Jeff Bezos. What did they ask for?

> 1. A full and complete mutual release of all claims that American Media, on the one hand, and Jeff Bezos and Gavin de Becker (the “Bezos Parties”), on the other, may have against each other.

> 2. A public, mutually-agreed upon acknowledgment from the Bezos Parties, released through a mutually-agreeable news outlet, affirming that they have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AM’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces, and an agreement that they will cease referring to such a possibility.

(see https://medium.com/@jeffreypbezos/no-thank-you-mr-pecker-146... )

I don't see how this could fail to be criminal. Getting someone to do what you want by threatening to print embarrassing pictures of them is the prototype for the crime of blackmail.

[tptacek]

See response below. Renato Mariotti is an expert, as is Ken White, who concurs (and also provides a further analysis of the case law on this).

[thaumasiotes]

I'm quoting from Renato Mariotti's thread here:

> 10/ What is extortion? Typically it's when someone demands money in exchange for keeping something embarrassing private. While we ordinarily have a First Amendment right to say whatever we please, it can be a crime to threaten to say something unless money is paid.

> 15/ To make this out as an extortion case, prosecutors would have to argue that the claims Bezos had against AMI constituted "money or property" of Bezos and that the whole settlement proposal was merely window dressing for the extortion of Bezos by AMI.

But that is nonsense when compared to Washington's legal code, which specifically defines "extortion" to include demands for "services [...] includ[ing] sexual favors". I feel confident that sexual favors and other services are neither money nor property.

[tptacek]

You've left out the tweet immediately preceding 15:

14/ Was AMI's action slimy? Yes.

Is it consistent with some of the questionable practices that AMI engaged in on behalf of Trump and others? Yes.

But is this the sort of case federal prosecutors would charge as extortion? No.

[Novashi]

I don't think Bezos's post was necessarily a tell-all of everything they could have against AMI though. It just looked like the first shot.

IANAL, no evidence, just opinions, etc.

[doe88]

> he would be contributing 448m.

Maybe he could pull off a buy & kill of the whole NI.

[aswanson]

The owner is a Trump affiliated scumbag who ran "catch and kill" cover for Donald during the primaries. These people are so moronic and unethical. I can't wait for this era of American Idiocracy to be over.

[aswanson]

References: https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/media/trump-catch-and-kill/...

[r00fus]

It’ll still be here after Trump. He’s just the largest symptom.

[aswanson]

Agreed. It's just sad that a mag that runs stories on Kennedy conspiracy theories and rat boy stories runs cover for a reality show dolt that has his hands on the nuke codes, and half the U.S.electorate cheers that on. Real life is far more cynical than sarcasm.

[7e]

Jeff has tremendous resources, but a measly blog post is his counter-punch? He really is screwed.

[jackvalentine]

How so?

[ahoy]

cool legal system we have where you can literally pay to win

[kentm]

What Gawker did to Hulk Hogan was illegal and unethical. And when they were told to take the video down by a judge they refused to do so. Gawker lost because they were in the wrong and were destroyed because they refused to just take the L

[cwkoss]

Its OK the celebrate the ends while also criticizing the morality of the means

[kentm]

My remark was more about how often this case is trotted out as setting a concerning precedent. Gawker basically acted like jackasses and blew their own leg off, and Thiel was just there to make sure they didn't miss. It's hard for me to see that as setting a morally troubling precedent, and it doesn't fit neatly into the narrative of "Billionaire uses money to destroy enemies" unless you omit most of the relevant details. Presumably they could have avoided the entire situation by not being shady and breaking the law. And the rich having better access to legal representation is not something that was changed in any way with regards to this case.

[sidlls]

I took it differently: it's an indictment of a system in which a person without Thiel's means is much less likely to obtain justice.

[ousta]

gawker deserved everything it happened and more. https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1444591425984.jpg

[kbutler]

But the indictment (pun intended) of the legal system is that it took a billionaire's $10 million to see that justice was done.

[meko]

What happened to freedom of the press?

[apocalyptic0n3]

Freedom of the Press does not allow for breaking the law and _especially_ does not allow them to disobey a court order after their illegal activities are litigated (and, especially _especially_ does not allow them to flaunt that disobedience in the public). What Gawker did was not protected by the first amendment, nor should it be.

That being said, I also don't believe what Thiel did was ethical or just. It's a scary prospect.

[deegles]

Maybe reality is a bit more nuanced than “the press can publish anything without consequences.”

[tomhoward]

Any reasonable person understands that freedom hits limits when it unjustly impinges on other people's freedoms.

Can you name an instance where a person or body is entitled to completely unfettered freedom, regardless of harmful external consequences?

The Golden Rule is one of the most ancient and foundational principles we have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

[writepub]

The press doesn't have the freedom to blackmail and do illegal biddings for powerful people, and destroy lives when lives aren't newsworthy.

[bitwize]

Unless you post pro-Trump memes critical of CNN to Reddit, in which case CNN knows where you live, and whether or not CNN decides to publish that information depends very much on whether you apologize for your hateful stunt like a good boy.

[saagarjha]

Freedom of the press does not give you a free pass to violate people's right to privacy.

[lr4444lr]

Gawker's insurance was going to bat for them, and would have likely reached settlement. What Thiel's team did was help Hogan's lawyers deliberately construct their suit in such a way, even scale it back if I understand correctly, that if found liable, would not have fall within Gawker's insurance policy.[0] Faced with the prospect of a huge uncovered loss, Gawker crumpled like a cheap suit. Paid to win? I doubt it. Hogan was up against a team seasoned pros, and was just lucky to have an enemy of his enemy. Much respect to Thiel for sticking to principle.

[0] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gawkers-insurer-lo...

[untog]

That still feels off to me. Thiel didn't go to court to argue for Gawker to be shut down, he argued something different knowing that the financial implications (that they'd specifically targeted) meant it would be shut down. Still feels like an incredible exercise of rich guy power.

[tomp]

It's unfortunate that not everybody has this power. But since we can't change that, it's fortunate that at least some random rich guy has this power. (Random in the sense that he's not royalty/political dynasty, but literally anyone lucky enough to have become rich in capitalism.)

[CalChris]

Bezos is Bezos. What principle did Thiel who is not Hogan stick to?

[crazypyro]

Yeah, it sucks, but it says more about individuals WITHOUT funding and their complete lack of efficacy. Once any individual with any potentially legitimate complaint is given the resources to fight back, it becomes a much fairer battleground.

In fact, I would argue that these billionaires funding lawsuits like Hulk Hogan's actually allow the average person a higher success chance. Its pragmatism in the face of a ridiculously slanted justice system.

[outworlder]

> cool legal system we have where you can literally pay to win

No, because he is not rewriting any laws. The laws are already on his side.

There is a deeper issue where parties without adequate resources may be provided ineffective representation.

The US legal system may have its flaws, but you should really see how the legal systems in some 3rd world countries operate. Those can be literally pay to win.

[saagarjha]

> worth 2.5m

You might want to multiply that by three orders of magnitude ;)

[JimmyAustin]

Fixed!

[njarboe]

You surly meant 2.5b not 2.5m.

[JimmyAustin]

Fixed!

[throwaway2048]

Not sure that billionaires destroying media outlets is something to be cheered on.

[kajecounterhack]

Not sure national enquirer is a "media outlet."

In general I agree that the fourth estate needs protection but I don't think arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.

[dominotw]

> arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.

Who gets to decide what is arbitrary?

[JimmyAustin]

"Billionaries destroying media outlets" is an emergent property from two facts: - Some people can't/don't get justice because they can't afford a lawsuit. - Rich people can give money to poor people to get them that justice.

In order for Bezos to destroy them legally, they still need to have messed up in some way.

[untog]

It's all but inevitable that a news publisher will get a story wrong at some point, that's why corrections get issued. So it's still a lot of power to put in the hands of the already powerful.

[neveroffensive]

There's a difference between a correction to a flawed article and attempted blackmail though... One is an accident that can occurre in the course of good journalism, the other is something else entirely.

[untog]

Oh sure. I was talking in the context of Thiel and Gawker, not Bezos and the National Enquirer.

[wutbrodo]

Yes, but this isn't an accurate description of gawker's case either. This wasn't a case of accidentally falling on the wrong side of the legal line and only realizing when it's too late. They repeatedly ignored direct court orders, eg to take down the video.

[jawnv6]

wasn't it generally agreed that the Gawker-destroying opinion probably would have been reversed if they could've kept it afloat for an appeal? the bar for "messed up" isn't where you'd think

[tathougies]

Because the billionaire is not destroying anything. He is requesting that the government, the entity charged with protecting citizens from criminals, notices and prosecutes a crime.

The prosecution of companies and individuals for the breaking of just laws is something to cheer

[davidw]

Real media outlets don't try and blackmail people, as Bezos makes clear in his post.

[thrillgore]

But at the same time, Trump uses the Enquirer to cover his antics up. Today, my enemy's enemy is my friend.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Since media outlets don't engage in blackmail, there are none involved in this dispute. This is a billionaire versus a filthy, blackmailing rag.

[neveroffensive]

Nothing you've said here is wrong. The enquirer doesn't meet the minimum standards of journalism, they are a blackmail rag. I think this could actually be proven with empirical data.