[FireBeyond]

> The reason Hogan won the lawsuit against Gawker is because they shared a video and story that was not newsworthy, and unfairly invaded a person's privacy.

I have no issue with Hogan winning: "I have many issues, not with Hogan's lawsuit, but Thiel's bankrolling of it".

[meowster]

Is your issue with the people themselves, or is your issue people getting justice when they otherwise could not afford it? If your issue is with the people themselves, is it your opinion that justice should only be reserved for people that you like?

[FireBeyond]

Seemed to me like Hogan both could afford it -and- had a possible result in his favor: part ownership of Gawker, revenue sharing, and damages.

Thiel's lawyers seem to have talked him out of it, and in the process, talked him into withdrawing the only claim that would have gotten him the damages he sought.

Either Hogan was paid "under the table" by Thiel, which goes to my point of "facing your accuser", because you're "throwing away" a positive result for someone else's idea of a positive result, or...

Thiel and his lawyers screwed over Hogan, promoting an outcome that was more what Thiel wanted than Hogan.

But for clarity: Fuck Gawker - the world is not poorer for their loss. I just think there's several ethical questions without answers in this instance.

[try_the_bass]

Generally, when someone with money (Thiel) provides it to help someone with less money (Hogan) achieve a victory over those with more (Gawker), we celebrate it as a positive example of philanthropy.

What makes this case different?

[FireBeyond]

Hogan had a deal that was part-ownership of Gawker, entitlements to a share of revenue, and damages, prior to Thiel and his lawyers coming along.

How is that not a victory compared to after? "A fraction of the damages, in bankruptcy" doesn't seem quite comparable.

[try_the_bass]

Depends on what Hogan values, I guess?

[E] Put differently: if I were in Hogan's shoes, and was offered the choice between destroying a shitty publication that went out of their way to expose my personal life in an extremely embarrassing and entirely _not_ newsworthy way; or profiting off that same publication's continued existence? I would absolutely choose the former, because the publication's business model is the problem. Making money off the publication would be _morally_ wrong for me, once given the option of pursuing the destruction of the publication.