This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/23/first-thiel-now-the-trumps-how-billionaires-threaten-free-speech
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| First Thiel, now the Trumps: how billionaires threaten free speech First Thiel, now the Trumps: how billionaires threaten free speech | |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| Less than 24 hours after Gawker.com was killed by billionaire Peter Thiel’s legal crusade against it, another billionaire couple – Donald and Melania Trump – is already using the same law firm Thiel did to threaten more media organizations into silence. And this time, it could have a direct effect on the presidential election. | Less than 24 hours after Gawker.com was killed by billionaire Peter Thiel’s legal crusade against it, another billionaire couple – Donald and Melania Trump – is already using the same law firm Thiel did to threaten more media organizations into silence. And this time, it could have a direct effect on the presidential election. |
| The Guardian reported late on Monday night that Melania Trump’s lawyers have sent threatening letters and are considering filing lawsuits against a variety of media organizations – including the Daily Mail, Politico and the Week – for reporting on rumors of Melania Trump’s past, including her alleged immigration status when she came to the United States. | The Guardian reported late on Monday night that Melania Trump’s lawyers have sent threatening letters and are considering filing lawsuits against a variety of media organizations – including the Daily Mail, Politico and the Week – for reporting on rumors of Melania Trump’s past, including her alleged immigration status when she came to the United States. |
| This is the quintessential example of the disturbing precedent Peter Thiel has just set by creating a blueprint for billionaires to destroy news organizations they do not like. He has shown that all they need is a little persistence. And in a media landscape that is increasingly dominated by the rich and powerful, that should give even Gawker’s most ardent critics pause. | This is the quintessential example of the disturbing precedent Peter Thiel has just set by creating a blueprint for billionaires to destroy news organizations they do not like. He has shown that all they need is a little persistence. And in a media landscape that is increasingly dominated by the rich and powerful, that should give even Gawker’s most ardent critics pause. |
| We know Donald Trump and others have gone down this path before. Trump has openly bragged about the fact that he sued a former New York Times reporter in the early aughts for the purpose of trying to hit the reporter involved financially. Trump did lose that lawsuit, but not until after litigation that undoubtedly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for the winning party. | We know Donald Trump and others have gone down this path before. Trump has openly bragged about the fact that he sued a former New York Times reporter in the early aughts for the purpose of trying to hit the reporter involved financially. Trump did lose that lawsuit, but not until after litigation that undoubtedly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for the winning party. |
| And if you think the Trumps are litigious now, just wait until after November. Peter Scheer, director of the First Amendment coalition, explained the consequences of the Gawker case succinctly: | And if you think the Trumps are litigious now, just wait until after November. Peter Scheer, director of the First Amendment coalition, explained the consequences of the Gawker case succinctly: |
| Say five years from now, if Trump loses and people are writing critical postmortems, will they have to worry that Trump will turn around and sue them? Because of the Gawker trial, I fear that many journalists will wonder, “Could that happen to me, even in writing about Trump?” They will be censoring themselves. That is the worst outcome here, and it’s quite likely. | Say five years from now, if Trump loses and people are writing critical postmortems, will they have to worry that Trump will turn around and sue them? Because of the Gawker trial, I fear that many journalists will wonder, “Could that happen to me, even in writing about Trump?” They will be censoring themselves. That is the worst outcome here, and it’s quite likely. |
| But Trump is not the only culprit. In yet another ominous example, Mother Jones, the liberal nonprofit magazine known for its investigative journalism, spent millions of dollars in legal fees when another billionaire, Frank VanderSloot, sued the company and its reporters over a critical story and some tweets from its editors. Mother Jones won the case last year, relatively early in the process, but still faced an existential financial crisis because of the enormous legal costs associated with the lawsuit. VanderSloot then announced a million-dollar fund to be used for suing Mother Jones and additional members of the “liberal press” in other cases. | But Trump is not the only culprit. In yet another ominous example, Mother Jones, the liberal nonprofit magazine known for its investigative journalism, spent millions of dollars in legal fees when another billionaire, Frank VanderSloot, sued the company and its reporters over a critical story and some tweets from its editors. Mother Jones won the case last year, relatively early in the process, but still faced an existential financial crisis because of the enormous legal costs associated with the lawsuit. VanderSloot then announced a million-dollar fund to be used for suing Mother Jones and additional members of the “liberal press” in other cases. |
| Even in the Hulk Hogan case, though many people rightly found the story and sex tape offensive and argued it shouldn’t have been published to begin with, a federal judge and an appeals court panel both ruled Gawker was protected by the first amendment before the trial, and they were prevented from having an appeals court rule on the judgment before they filed for bankruptcy. | Even in the Hulk Hogan case, though many people rightly found the story and sex tape offensive and argued it shouldn’t have been published to begin with, a federal judge and an appeals court panel both ruled Gawker was protected by the first amendment before the trial, and they were prevented from having an appeals court rule on the judgment before they filed for bankruptcy. |
| But we shouldn’t forget that Gawker was not just getting sued over the Hulk Hogan sex tape case. They were the recipient of a half-dozen other lawsuits or legal threats involving many stories of an investigative or critical nature that virtually any first-year law student could tell you are clearly protected by the first amendment. | But we shouldn’t forget that Gawker was not just getting sued over the Hulk Hogan sex tape case. They were the recipient of a half-dozen other lawsuits or legal threats involving many stories of an investigative or critical nature that virtually any first-year law student could tell you are clearly protected by the first amendment. |
| In the end, even if you think Gawker deserved punishment, media organizations should not face the financial death penalty for a mistake, even a deplorable and egregious one. After all, there is probably one billionaire or another who hates pretty much every news organization in the world worth their salt. If they all decide to go down the path Thiel took, how many publications will be left when they’re done? | In the end, even if you think Gawker deserved punishment, media organizations should not face the financial death penalty for a mistake, even a deplorable and egregious one. After all, there is probably one billionaire or another who hates pretty much every news organization in the world worth their salt. If they all decide to go down the path Thiel took, how many publications will be left when they’re done? |