Gawker.com go bye-bye

Yes, that is hyperbole. No, the way Peter Thiel swung his dick to bring them down over words he didn't like, presents a danger. There is a right way to deal with ideas and messages you don't like or find offensive. And there is a wrong way. That was the wrong way.

 

The fact that Peter Thiel put millions of dollars into a bunch of disparate lawsuits to try to shut down a site that pissed him off is exactly the point, for me. I am not arguing that Gawker wasn't guilty of "schoolyard-bully-level cruelty," as that writer put it, or that it pissed off people and made enemies. Of course it did.

That doesn't mean that someone with millions of dollars should be able to use civil litigation in an "any-means-necessary" way, to shut down a publication he has a vendetta against -- even that schoolyard bully. If you are willing to look the other way on what is essentially a free press issue when it is Gawker, just don't be surprised if or when it involves a publication or website you find less objectionable.

And for what it is worth there are a million "right ways," to my way of thinking, to challenge a bully. Peter Thiel could have used that money to take out full page ads in every newspaper in the country. He could have run TV ads. He could have started his own website to try to convince people who gave Gawker traffic that it was smut and not worth their time. He could have started a boycott of Gawker advertisers or otherwise put pressure on them. I get it. He did the most expedient, "fuck with them but good" thing, instead. It was the smart move if he had a singular focus of destroying them. And it worked. My problem is that that option should not have been available to him in a free society.

 

My posts aren't about the most effective way to "win." Peter Thiel won. He shut them down because they pissed him off. It worked.

My point is that the fact that he was able to lurk in the shadows with millions of dollars and use a crappy state law to shut down a website is a blow to a free and open society -- even if Gawker WAS a bunch of shitbags taking shots at people.

Personally, I also think that the most effective way to deal with a bully is not to shout it down by any means necessary -- even if that can be the most expedient thing to do if you have the resources, and it just feels good. I think the people who actually make a difference in the long-run -- i.e. change attitudes of people -- are willing to challenge ideas or words they don't like head on and with reason. Otherwise you are just the guy with the bigger gun (for the day).

And typefitter, no, Gawker should not have lost that lawsuit. The grounds they were able to sue on in Florida shouldn't even exist. The point of a free press is that you don't get to impose your ideas of what is "good journalism" on the world. That is the thing that makes it so honest dissent can exist.

AJ Daulerio could have endorsed genocide or kiddy sex tapes or any other horrible thing you can think of in a deposition. It makes him an asshole. But he has the right to be an asshole. In this case, it was stupid obviously, because their opponents used it to appeal to emotion. The thing is, emotion should have had no place in this.