By David Harsanyi
Friday, June 10, 2016
So Gawker and its owner Nick Denton filed Chapter 11
today to avoid paying Hulk Hogan the $140 million they owe him after losing an
invasion of privacy trial. The suit was funded by libertarian billionaire Peter
Thiel, which, according to many liberals, makes this the most vital First
Amendment case of our lifetime.
In a spasm of hypocrisy, many of the same people who
don’t believe corporations deserve constitutional rights; who think allowing
the state to ban political movies and books is a fine idea; who are constantly
telling us how important the courts are in realizing a just society; who are in
the pocket of the trial lawyer lobby; and who have achieved almost every major
political victory through third-party-funded court battles (sometimes
taxpayer-funded) now worry about slippery slopes because a libertarian has
funded a successful lawsuit.
Take the illiberal New York State Attorney General Eric
T. Schneiderman, a proponent of censorship who is considering using
racketeering charges against global warming skeptics. A government official who
wants to punish people for thought crimes now has the temerity to talk about
freedom of the press. Gawker, by the way, once favorably wrote about arresting
climate change deniers. Unlike Michael Mann and Bill Nye and a bunch of AGs,
there are those who believe political speech should be protected, and yet also
that media organizations should not be immune from the law.
It’s worth once again pointing out that the trial was
okayed by judge, the verdict was rendered by a jury, and the decision was
upheld by a circuit judge. In no sense does this suit fall under the concept of
“frivolous.” Yet liberal writers do not like the outcome mostly because Thiel
is politically unacceptable to them and because they don’t like that he was
driven by revenge.
I wrote this when the ruling came down:
Moreover, if Thiel’s motivation
were a cause liberal pundits felt some moral or ideological affinity towards,
they would be cheering him on. Vox asserts that Thiel ‘sees his lawsuit as a
public-spirited attempt to enforce norms of decency and respect for personal
privacy.’ Or, in other words, he uses the judicial system the same way liberals
have for decades when trying to enforce their own norms—including ones on
abortion rights, gay marriage, and basically everything else they value.
Actually, every contemporary major
lawsuit of any political consequence has probably been funded in some way by a
third party. If Thiel is a problem, so is the pro bono legal work of wealthy
lawyers who donate their time and resources to causes that move them. So is
contingent litigation. So are class-action lawsuits. So is every advocacy legal
group. Start with the ACLU, which is backed by hundreds of One Percenters and
works to enforce its own norms of ‘decency and respect’ when it comes boys’ and
girls’ bathrooms and leads crusades to do away with the Free Exercise Clause.
You think these awards are out of control? Let’s talk
about tort reform. If you have a problem with the merits of the case, we can
debate it. Let’s remember, a Gawker editor claimed that he was okay with
publishing sex tapes for anyone older than four. Is that covered under the
First Amendment? Let’s discuss.
But if you’re okay with empowering government to ban a
political documentary during an election season by overturning Citizens United, but lament that Hulk
Hogan won a suit against a tabloid site that ran a sex tape of him without his
permission, you’re not serious about freedom of expression. If you’re anxious
about Thiel’s solid suit but not about multimillionaires like Nick Denton
regularly destroy people’s lives — people who often don’t have the resources to
fight back — you don’t really care about the little guy. Is Gawker beyond the
reach of the law? Or should it just be beyond the reach of third-party funders
that liberal pundits don’t like? Because it sure sounds like the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment