That's a tactic that any billionaire could use against any news organization. Instead, he waited for years until he could find other plaintiffs with stronger cases. But the key thing about his strategy is that he didn't sue Gawker for outing him - a case he probably would have lost. Thiel insists that he has no quarrel with news organizations that conform to mainstream journalistic norms. If a wealthy third party is willing to bankroll lawsuits by anyone with a grudge, and defending each case costs millions of dollars, the organization could get driven out of business even if it wins every single lawsuit. Any news organization doing its job is going to make some enemies. But the threat to freedom of the press is obvious. He 'announced that he was setting up a $1 million fund to pay the legal expenses of people wanting to sue Mother Jones or other members of the 'liberal press.’'Īs far as I know, no one has taken him up on the offer. What was really ominous was what happened after VanderSloot's loss. So 'winning' the lawsuit cost Mother Jones and its insurance company 30 times as much as the amount they would have had to pay if they had lost. His lawsuit sought $74,999 (staying just under the $75,000 threshold that would have allowed Mother Jones to move the case to federal court and away from an Idaho jury that might have favored the hometown plaintiff). If VanderSloot's goal was to punish Mother Jones for writing an accurate but unflattering story about him, a loss was almost as good as a victory. Winning the lawsuit cost Mother Jones, a relatively small nonprofit organization, and its insurance company $2.5 million in legal fees. Last year, the liberal magazine Mother Jones defeated a defamation lawsuit filed by Republican donor Frank VanderSloot. Gawker isn't the only publication to be targeted by a disgruntled billionaire. Whatever your view of Gawker’s journalism, the case does raise questions about whether billionaire-funded lawsuits could threaten freedom of speech. Billionaires funding lawsuits could be a threat to free speech Technology billionaire Peter Thiel. Jurors didn't buy arguments that the First Amendment protected Gawker's right to humiliate random celebrities by publishing video of their most intimate moments. 'If they were a child,' replied the editor, Albert Daulerio.Īs a result, arguments about media freedom fell on deaf ears in the jury box. During one deposition, Hogan's lawyers asked a former Gawker editor if there were any situation in which a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy. In court, Hogan's lawyers sought to portray Gawker as an organization without a moral compass. The man was not a public figure, and the piece was later removed after founder Nick Denton decided that the story had gone over the ethical line. In one of its most infamous stories, Gawker reported on a New York media executive soliciting the services of a male escort. Gawker has outed others, including CNN anchor Anderson Cooper and Shepard Smith of Fox News. Thiel has borne a grudge against Gawker since 2007, when Gawker published a post titled “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.” Thiel started to look for opportunities to punish Gawker for what he saw as irresponsible journalism. We didn’t know it at the time it was filed, but Hogan’s lawsuit was secretly funded by technology billionaire Peter Thiel. The company was put up for auction, with the proceeds used to pay part of Hogan’s judgment. Gawker Media didn’t have $140 million, so the company was forced to declare bankruptcy. A Florida jury agreed, awarding Hogan $140 million in damages earlier this year. Hogan sued, arguing that this was a violation of his privacy. Gawker Media’s path to bankruptcy began with a decision by editors to publish a video of Hulk Hogan having sex - without the permission of either Hogan or his partner. Photo by John Pendygraft-Pool/Getty Images Gawker’s sensationalistic journalism brought about its downfall Gawker founder Nick Denton. Other Gawker Media sites will apparently continue operating, and Univision’s management will be able to focus their full energies on them. Shuttering will allow Univision to get a fresh start. But the business logic behind the decision seems pretty clear: ’s brand had become so toxic that continuing to operate the site could have posed significant financial risks. It might seem surprising for Univision to spend $130 million for the company and then immediately shutter its flagship brand. The decision comes just two days after Univision won an auction to acquire Gawker Media, the parent company of as well as websites like Gizmodo and Lifehacker. , a gossip blog that spawned a multimillion-dollar media empire, is shutting down next week.

Gawker media bankrupt