A few days ago I responded to a Q by a friend of mine. He asked why HuffingtonPost articles were dominated by lists. What was this thing with lists?<\/p>\n
I felt ever so hip when I told him that, yeah, lists were such a big deal there was even a term for pieces or posts that were lists: listicles.<\/p>\n
Listicles are supposed to attract readers because, well, hey, I’m not sure. Smoother to read? Faster to read? An automatic, Twitter-like restriction\/reminder on limiting your words because nobody reads anything more than 140 characters nowadays?<\/p>\n
Sorry, theorists: I write long. I started writing before instant gratification and thumb-texting and although I’m sort of proud that I can do a tweet about something I’ve posted here, here is where I feel I can spread out.<\/p>\n
Especially with the following collection of related lawsuit stories about which I find I have a lot to say. And it isn’t because Hulk Hogan is the centerpiece.<\/p>\n
BUT. I’m going to fold myself into the listicle convention. Here goes.<\/p>\n
The bankrolling of a lawsuit against the Gawker website by the Silicon Valley figure Peter Thiel has led to a debate encompassing broader themes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Source: <\/a>Thiel-Gawker Fight Raises Concerns About Press Freedom – The New York Times<\/a><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n
START THIS LISTICLE HERE<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
- Yeah, maybe. Except…<\/li>\n
- I’ve been reading the news about Gawker declaring bankruptcy, presumably because of the huge verdict handed by a jury to Hulk Hogan in his invasion of privacy lawsuit.<\/li>\n
- Gawker’s CEO, Nick Denton<\/a>, has been saying stuff about Peter Thiel<\/a>, the PayPal co-founder, who financed Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, apparently in vengeance because Gawker let it out that Thiel was gay. Thiel didn’t like that, didn’t want them to. Denton, it seems, ignored Thiel’s request not to print that personal information about him.<\/li>\n
- Denton, too, is gay, but thoroughly out–which was presumably his personal decision, one he did not grant to Thiel. Denton is also British. The Brits have fierce, not entirely rational, laws against defamation, unlike our laws which are pretty rational.<\/a><\/li>\n
- Again, here’s the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of defamation:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
defamation<\/strong>, n. 1.<\/strong> The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person. If the alleged defamation involves a matter of public concern, the plaintiff is constitutionally required to prove both the statement\u2019s falsity and the defendant\u2019s fault. 2<\/strong>. A false written or oral statement that damages another\u2019s reputation.<\/em><\/p>\n
6. Maybe it’s because our laws are much looser than Britain’s that Denton came to the U.S. to start his gossipy conglomerate. Where, he must have thought, he wouldn’t be sued. At least not so much. Poor baby.<\/p>\n
Many who have sued Gawker said it overstepped the boundaries of privacy, slandered reputations or failed to do adequate reporting before posting articles.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Source: For Gawker, Legal Issues Beyond Hogan \u2013 The New York Times<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
7. Thiel, like most politically feckless multi-billionaires, is a Donald Trump supporter and delegate<\/a>. (A lot of feckless billionaires are “libertarians.” Thiel has, with Trump, gone one step further down the yellow brick road to hell.)<\/p>\n
8. And now the New York Times weighs in with another point:<\/p>\n
Today\u2019s quiet maneuvering by the ultrawealthy is very different from \u2014 and can be more dangerous than \u2014 the undisguised views of moguls like William Randolph Hearst.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Source: Behind the Scenes, Billionaires\u2019 Growing Control of News – The New York Times<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
9. I have a few things to say about all of this.<\/p>\n
10. Gawker was found by a jury to be wrong when it invaded Hulk Hogan’s privacy. Peter Thiel’s money did not “buy” that verdict. Despite the common, cynical and angry popular view, money does not buy verdicts. A good case wins verdicts.<\/p>\n
11. There are murmurs that perhaps Thiel has no legal or ethical right to finance lawsuits. <\/a>I am not a lawyer but I am full to the brim with common legal sense and it makes no legal sense to me that anyone can be barred from supporting a lawsuit. What law is he breaking? Lawyers can’t give money directly to their clients during a contingency lawsuit, even though their clients might need the money. There are good reasons for this ethical rule<\/a>, but Thiel isn’t Hogan’s lawyer.<\/p>\n
12. And another point to make: Thiel may feel furious at Denton for exposing him as gay, but remember Thiel did not sue Gawker for invasion of privacy or defamation<\/strong>. I can only assume it’s because Thiel understood, or was given the expert understanding of lawyers, that what Gawker did to him was not defamation, and probably wouldn’t be considered an invasion of privacy.<\/p>\n
13. Even if Thiel hadn’t financed the lawsuit, I’m virtually certain Hulk Hogan would have won. For one thing, this was indubitably a contingency case; that is, it was not financed by Hulk Hogan himself. Its costs were most likely advanced–paid by–Hulk Hogan’s lawyers who will, when the money question is resolved, get their costs back first, and then will get, depending on state laws, around one-third of the final dollar award.<\/p>\n
14. Had Hulk Hogan’s lawyers determined that it wasn’t a good case–that is, wouldn’t get enough of an award to make it worth their time and efforts–they wouldn’t have pursued it.<\/p>\n
15. The jury award was $140 million. The jury wasn’t bought by Thiel’s money; nor is the jury getting a percentage of the award. As I’ve written about before,<\/a> huge jury awards are usually appealed and eventually are brought way down. Indeed, Gawker has announced it will be appealing the award. While the appeal is going on, Hogan’s lawyers and Gawker’s lawyer will begin serious negotiations over the final amount. Which, I pretty much guarantee, will not<\/em> be $140 million.<\/p>\n
16. If you doubt me, look at this abstract from the New York Law Journal, which showed up in my inbox after I wrote the above at 15:<\/p>\n
\n\nBrooklyn Court Slices $11M From Subway Verdict<\/em><\/h1>\n<\/div>\n