Is your issue with the people themselves, or is your issue people getting justice when they otherwise could not afford it? If your issue is with the people themselves, is it your opinion that justice should only be reserved for people that you like?
Seemed to me like Hogan both could afford it -and- had a possible result in his favor: part ownership of Gawker, revenue sharing, and damages.
Thiel's lawyers seem to have talked him out of it, and in the process, talked him into withdrawing the only claim that would have gotten him the damages he sought.
Either Hogan was paid "under the table" by Thiel, which goes to my point of "facing your accuser", because you're "throwing away" a positive result for someone else's idea of a positive result, or...
Thiel and his lawyers screwed over Hogan, promoting an outcome that was more what Thiel wanted than Hogan.
But for clarity: Fuck Gawker - the world is not poorer for their loss. I just think there's several ethical questions without answers in this instance.
FireBeyond|1 year ago
Thiel's lawyers seem to have talked him out of it, and in the process, talked him into withdrawing the only claim that would have gotten him the damages he sought.
Either Hogan was paid "under the table" by Thiel, which goes to my point of "facing your accuser", because you're "throwing away" a positive result for someone else's idea of a positive result, or...
Thiel and his lawyers screwed over Hogan, promoting an outcome that was more what Thiel wanted than Hogan.
But for clarity: Fuck Gawker - the world is not poorer for their loss. I just think there's several ethical questions without answers in this instance.