eBay boss joins Thiel critics

The CEO of eBay, Devin Wenig, has become the latest Silicon Valley exec to take issue with VC Peter Thiel's secret lawsuit funding. Speaking at the CodeCon conference on Thursday, Wenig said: "I side with the free media and the free press," when asked about Thiel's decision to fund and direct the case brought by Hulk Hogan …

[dan1980]

Does Bezos actually know what the case is about?

'Bezos said earlier this week: "I don't think a billionaire should be able to fund a lawsuit to kill Gawker," adding, "the best defense against speech you don't like is a thick skin. If you can't tolerate critics, then don't do anything new or interesting." '

First up, Thiel was angry mostly about being shamelesely 'outed' as gay by Gawker - not for them being "critics" of him doing something "new or interesting". What then does Bezos hold up as the best defence against being outed as gay by Gawker? "Don't do anything gay", perhaps?

That dealt with, however, and now considering the actual lawsuit being funded, I'd also like to hear what Bezos believes is the "best defence" against Gawker publishing revenge porn?

While Thiel's motivation for funding the case may well be the grudge he holds against Gawker, that doesn't affect the merits of the case one iota.

Considering the gross a breach of privacy that has occurred here, is Bezos suggesting that the plaintiff shouldn't get the best legal representation possible? Legal costs are a big factor for people and accepting a settlement offer can be attractive to avoid a prolonged case and mounting legal bills.

It might be argued that the plaintiff may have accepted the $10m settlement offer without Thiel's backing. But I don't see why not having to accept the offer is a bad thing. It's been pointed out that the route that has been taken may well result in the plaintiff getting little to no compensation and the implication is that Thiel is being manipulative in order to achieve his own goals rather than get justice and fair compensation for the plaintiff.

But again, remember the facts of the case: the plaintiff had his privacy violated in the crudest fashion by the defendant, who did so with callous disregard in the pursuit of per-click revenue.

Given that, is it really THAT unreasonable that the plaintiff actually cares more about stopping Gawker, and thus preventing them from doing this to anyone else, more than he cares about monetary compensation?

Might he - of his own accord and without manipulation by Thiel - not actually want to destroy Gawker?

[Neoc]

Re: Does Bezos actually know what the case is about?

@dan1980:

So you're happy with the fact that instead of lobbying publicly for reforms to the Law, or even publicly standing behind Hogan, this twerp decided to do every thing under the table in order to get his way? "The ends justify the means"?

No, this is revenge. If he was so interested in shutting up Gawker he would do so via other more transparent methods. Heck, he could have simply bought out Gawker Media LLC and fired the reporter who outed him - at least this would have been direct.

[dan1980]

Re: Does Bezos actually know what the case is about?

@Neoc

I may be misunderstanding you but I think you're missing the point, which is that Thiel's motives are irrelevant and don't figure into the verdict that has been handed down.

How could it, when his involvement was not known to the court until after the decision? (Though I may be wrong about that.)

A jury found that Gawker's conduct in publishing what can only be described as 'revenge porn' justified compensation of $115m, which was more than the plaintiff was seeking. And, further, they awarded punitive damages of an additional $25m.

That last part's important because punitive damages are awarded in cases where the the defendant's conduct is judged to be especially damaging to the plaintiff and particularly when that damage is willful.

Moreover, as the term suggests, punitive damages are not considered compensation for the plaintiff but punishment for the defendant.

In other words, the jury found that not only should the plaintiff be compensated for injury, but the defendant should be punished above and beyond that. And not one cent of those damages was awarded to cure harm caused by Gawker 'outing' Thiel.

Yes, Thiel is out to ruin Gawker but what he has done towards that end is to provide the financial backing required for the plaintiff to take the case to trial (rather than settling out of court) and thereby allow it to be presented, in full, in a court of law where a jury can reach a verdict.

So, while Thiel's motive may be revenge, I'm not sure what "means" need to be justified.

If Gawker are forced into bankruptcy then that will be as a result of a legal ruling about publishing revenge porn and the compensation and punishment awarded for those actions.

[Triggerfish]

Re: Does Bezos actually know what the case is about?

Yep it's revenge, someone comes along and starts trying to mess with your private life, shame you for being gay, outing you whatever, and you don't want revenge. fair enough? But frankly it's a motive I can understand.

[dan1980]

Re: Does Bezos actually know what the case is about?

It's really quite simple: Gawker's hunger for per-click profits regardless of hurt and harm scored them two enemies. They teamed-up.

[Richard Boyce]

Winner pays?

AFAIK, in the US, unlike here in the UK, a plaintiff can damage a defendant financially, even if the defendant wins the case because a successful defendant is expected to pay his own legal costs. In the UK, the loser generally pays both sides' costs incurred before any reasonable settlement offer.

Assuming I'm correct, can someone please explain to me why the US operates in this apparently unjust way? It would seem to encourage vexatious lawsuits by the wealthy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Winner pays?

Assuming I'm correct, can someone please explain to me why the US operates in this apparently unjust way? It would seem to encourage vexatious lawsuits by the wealthy.

I don't get why people so often ask a question, and then answer it themselves in their very next sentence.

[David Roberts]

Compensation for loss?

I would be interested in how they came to set the damages.

Losing $115m revenue suggests a truly massive revenue stream.

Or is the rule still to pick an outrageous sum then just leave the jury to decide "megabucks or nothing"?

[Derpity]

Re: Compensation for loss?

I believe the actual breakdown is $55 million for compensatory and $60 mil for emotional damages. While its hard to defend either side one could argue Hogan would still be getting paid for all kinds of stuff had this video not been posted outing him as a racist. They also awarded $25 mil in punitive.