# Peter Thiel vs. Gawker: Should I be glad about this, or worried? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-thiel-vs-gawker-should-i-be-glad-about-this-or-worried/755766 "2016-05-26T21:17:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-thiel-vs-gawker-should-i-be-glad-about-this-or-worried/755766/141 "2016-06-14T22:20:26Z")
Hey **brickbacon** , whatever happened to your acquaintance who ran the blog that was sued by the shady business? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-thiel-vs-gawker-should-i-be-glad-about-this-or-worried/755766/142 "2016-06-15T00:50:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is how I think it should be. I think the trial should if not solely, at least primarily be based on the facts of the tort that happened pre-trial. The damages inflicted are part of that. But how can you assess those damages and establish those facts without testimony, something that is open to interpretation and judgment? More importantly, why do you think trials are not just bloodless presentations of “facts”? Isn’t it because the agreed upon facts don’t tell us much? For example, I am sure both Gawker and Hogan agree they wrote what they wrote on a certain day and time. And that Hogan said a given thing on the record on a given date. What they disagree on is about everything else. Things like whether they intended to damage him, and whether the video was damaging, and whether it was newsworthy, etc. The only way for a jury to decide on those disagreements is to go beyond the “facts” and to listen to the testimony and other evidence to see whose interpretation is more accurate in their minds. > [@Bone](#): > > No joke. This is the basis of public interest litigation. No, it’s not. Plaintiffs are not paid to act in that capacity. > [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think I’m missing the point - maybe I didn’t make my point clearly. Judges are supposed to be impartial so if in fact or appearance they are not impartial, that’s bad. Plaintiffs are not supposed to be impartial - so if in fact or appearance they are not impartial, that’s fine. You can’t say because judges \*are supposed \*to be impartial and we should limit acts where they may appear to be biased, plaintiffs _are not supposed_ to be impartial, so we should limit acts where they may appear to be biased. Those are very different scenario. You raise a compelling point, but it doesn’t support your specific argument that money doesn’t influence people. > [@Bone](#): > > A simple mistake doesn’t rise to the level of libel. Depends on the mistake. > [@Bone](#): > > If the allegations are true, then Hogan did not have the resources to bring to conclusion the litigation that was done with Thiel’s backing. Sure he did. He might not have enough to try this case forever as he can now, but he certainly had the resources to be made whole. > [@Bone](#): > > He could fight back, but not in the same way he could with Thiel’s resources. What if it was a minor blogger that didn’t have Thiel to back them up? Should they be able to accept third party funding? My point here, is the relative wealth of a person shouldn’t matter when determining if funding is allowed. I am not saying third party funding should be outlawed. Just that you should not be able to do it anonymously and with no skin in the game such that it doesn’t allow a defendant who feels he is being harassed to fight back. > [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think these rules hold for civil proceedings, but I’m not sure about that. Generally no. The circumstances don’t come up since the state is not a party to a case generally speaking. > [@Bone](#): > > I think this is probably the strongest argument against my position - that non-disclosed third party funding may induce the plaintiff to lie or impact the earnestness of the plaintiff. I agree it may. I stand by what I said in my post #130:_Because that’s the fallacy of association. People may make these kind of evaluations but in my mind they should not do so. I agree that money can buy influence in some cases and people can be persuaded to lie for money or other motivations. I do agree that a civil jury is basing their damage assessment in part on the credibility of the plaintiff. I think in weighing the harms, forcing knowledge of third party funding does more harm than good and the probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial impact._ First, it’s not a fallacy of association. Second, what are you basing this theoretical prejudicial impact on? If anything, in this particular case, I think Thiel testifying that Gawker outed him would make Gawker look worse even if it made him seem petty for seeking revenge. Your worry seems to be people will hear the ACLU or the NRA is funding a case and then draw conclusions about their involvement. However, I would counter that most people who cannot be impartial about the involvement of a controversial third party backer are almost assuredly pretty inflexible on the substantive issues a case either of the backers would sponsor would back. For example, someone appalled by the presence of the NRA in a lawsuit would generally have pretty resolute feeling on guns and gun ownership anyway. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Hey **brickbacon** , whatever happened to your acquaintance who ran the blog that was sued by the shady business? Good memory! I’ll have to find the link where I wrote about this years ago, but the short version is that a friend of mine wrote a blog post harshly criticizing a company, going as far as to say it was a scam. The company then sued him demanding a lot of money in damages, an apology, etc. For background, he is not a well known blogger, and I think the article had been read less than a dozen or so times before they sued him. What ended up happening is that a brother of a mutual friend of ours represented him basically pro bono. The initial case was filed in the wrong jurisdiction, and it got a few details about him wrong. My friend’s lawyer pointed this out to them in the process of getting the case dismissed. They said they would re-file if he didn’t agree to a lower settlement, an apology, etc. He said no. Then the just wanted him to take down the post and apologize. He refused. Eventually his lawyer started pushing back (I don’t remember if DC’s anti-SLAPP laws were around then), and they agreed to stop pressing the issue so long as he didn’t write about them anymore, or what happened with the lawsuit. There is no binding agreement or anything, but they kinda just left it there, IIRC. AFAIK, he has not done either of those things. All told, it cost him about $3000 or so. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-thiel-vs-gawker-should-i-be-glad-about-this-or-worried/755766/143 "2016-06-15T04:49:34Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > But how can you assess those damages and establish those facts without testimony, something that is open to interpretation and judgment? More importantly, why do you think trials are not just bloodless presentations of “facts”? > > Isn’t it because the agreed upon facts don’t tell us much? For example, I am sure both Gawker and Hogan agree they wrote what they wrote on a certain day and time. And that Hogan said a given thing on the record on a given date. What they disagree on is about everything else. Things like whether they intended to damage him, and whether the video was damaging, and whether it was newsworthy, etc. The only way for a jury to decide on those disagreements is to go beyond the “facts” and to listen to the testimony and other evidence to see whose interpretation is more accurate in their minds. I think no matter how well crafted the rules of the game are, juries will not be presented with perfect information. I think third party funding could fall into that bucket. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. Plaintiffs are not paid to act in that capacity. Can you elaborate on this a bit? I used an example to illustrate what I was describing - are you saying my example is not possible? NAACP v. Button was about similar issues of champarty and maintenance. > [@](#): > > You raise a compelling point, but it doesn’t support your specific argument that money doesn’t influence people. My point wasn’t that money doesn’t influence people - I think it can and it does. I’m just not concerned with the influence from a third party litigation funding. > [@](#): > > Sure he did. He might not have enough to try this case forever as he can now, but he certainly had the resources to be made whole. Well I think this is begging the question. What amount made him whole? Was it the award he won under the current fact pattern, or the award he would have won had he been persuaded to settle because he didn’t have Thiel’s resources? And what exactly makes him whole? If he considered the very existence of Gawker to be an affront and his goal was to bankrupt them, then he didn’t have enough to make him whole. > [@](#): > > I am not saying third party funding should be outlawed. Just that you should not be able to do it anonymously and with no skin in the game such that it doesn’t allow a defendant who feels he is being harassed to fight back. I don’t think this is totally unreasonable - I just don’t think this is a better outcome. I think as a matter of free speech, people should be able to advocate, fund, and spend in private. > [@](#): > > First, it’s not a fallacy of association. Second, what are you basing this theoretical prejudicial impact on? If anything, in this particular case, I think Thiel testifying that Gawker outed him would make Gawker look worse even if it made him seem petty for seeking revenge. Your worry seems to be people will hear the ACLU or the NRA is funding a case and then draw conclusions about their involvement. However, I would counter that most people who cannot be impartial about the involvement of a controversial third party backer are almost assuredly pretty inflexible on the substantive issues a case either of the backers would sponsor would back. For example, someone appalled by the presence of the NRA in a lawsuit would generally have pretty resolute feeling on guns and gun ownership anyway. You did object to the association fallacy upthread, but since I was quoting a post I left it in there. I disagree with you, but it’s not a big deal on that point. You believe that if the jury knew Thiel was funding Hogan the outcome would be different, no? Whatever that difference is, is the prejudicial impact. Using this instance as an example, I don’t think Thiel’s actions should have any impact on the outcome of the case. If there were rashes of small media outlets being extorted or forced to shut down as a result of frivalous litigation costs, I think there could be steps to remedy that. But as it is, I don’t see a problem and I see a greater problem in a potential solution. Even in the case of simple disclosure - this can be gotten around easily by using a shell corporation to fund the litigation. Or an existing firm like [Buford Capital](http://www.burfordcapital.com/)can be used. Disclosure alone is a fig leaf that doesn’t actually address the core issues. Anti-SLAPP and loser pays I think are much more useful and viable as options. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-thiel-vs-gawker-should-i-be-glad-about-this-or-worried/755766.md?page=7)