Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
stanfordpolitics.org
stanfordpolitics.org
I skimmed the story (`wc` says it is 5,700+ words). The most interesting thing I picked up on was how Thiel remains in surprisingly frequent contact with the Review staff over the years, even hosting dinners at his home.
According to a former Review editor, “he obviously had zero interest in getting to know us as individuals. He was there to figure out what was going on on the campus.” Another staffer adds:
> the thing which most Review alums are really interested in, not just or specifically Peter, is: they want to know what the issues de jour are, what the average Stanford student is like, and what we are doing to try and ensure that viewpoints that are usually not heard as heard
That's both impressive and...quaint? I mean, it'd be the equivalent of Barack Obama, now done with being President, hosting regular dinners and chats with the Harvard Law Review (he was the first black to lead the publication in its 104-years). Besides engaging conversation and socializing, what does Thiel have to gain from meeting up with students besides maybe being slightly earlier to sense a new political/societal movement (which is something he could get a gauge on in a variety of other ways off campus) .
Assuming his motives are as altruistic and casual as wanting to be a supporter of the Review and future generations, what strikes me is how much risk this social engagement is for Thiel given his public stature. An example of what I mean presents itself in the latter half of the article: an anonymous Review staffer spills the beans about the things Thiel said at a particular 2014 dinner (which was presumably off-the-record).
Thiel is smart enough to know this risk but seems to accept it anyway. If he's that sentimental about the Review, maybe he will make a donation.
> And in Silicon Valley, Review alumni have built an infrastructure that spans many billions of dollars in both company market value and personal wealth.
The article goes in depth on the first part (Thiel and Stanford Review) but doesn't go into the _how they built a silicon valley empire_ part.
Main takeaway is Thiel has been politically active since his sophomore years and his involvement in the current administration is in agreement with his past. So for most people who knew Thiel, it may not have come as a surprise.
I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take things from the person who wronged you, by force. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-syste...
But the issue is maybe you're not a great fighter, or you're old. You might not be comfortable taking things from someone by force. That's okay, because medieval iceland allowed you to sell the lawsuit/conviction to another party, and allow them to collect.
It resulted in a system that actually had a most valid lawsuits being pursued, because there were people willing to carry them out themselves. Kinda cool, and it feels similar to how Peter Thiel supported Hulk Hogan. And I'm pretty okay with it!
Would it make you feel any better if Hogan never got his day in court because he didn't have the money? Gawker was using their warchest to avoid litigation for completely legitimate lawsuits -- no matter how you feel about Thiel they got what was coming to them.
I agree we should move towards a costless or more efficient legal system, but in the meantime, the Hogan vs. Gawker lawsuit was a victory for the good guys.
> The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
I stole that from somewhere and had it saved as it sums up my thoughts better than I can write. If I had a legit civil lawsuit against a large misbehaving company you bet your last dollar I'd love to have a Thiel in my corner funding it. I see absolutely zero moral problem with that. If there is a moral problem or anything needs fixing - perhaps fix the court system that enables constant perversion of justice unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at attorney fees for even midrange lawsuits.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker...
Being in or out is kind of like a trade secret. You have to protect the trade secret. You can't tell it to your friends who are cool and have it remain a trade secret. Nor can you be semi out.
Thiel didn't like a story about him. Now if Gawker had invaded his privacy he'd have had legal recourse for that. But Gawker didn't invade his privacy and so he took his revenge elseways. And the article wasn't even critical.
there, fixed it for you.
Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.
Why do so many people ignore this fact? Yes, Thiel funded a lawsuit that bankrupted them. But he won that lawsuit because Gawker committed a crime. I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political causes. Either we agree that a third party is allowed to fund a legal case for political reasons or not. Isn't that in and of itself an issue of free speech?
What criminal statute was Gawker convicted of breaking?
It would behoove everyone to understand the difference between civil and criminal law. A tort is not a crime. They were found to have caused injury to the reputation of a person. That is not a crime.
Are you saying that this is why no one went to jail over this?? :) :)
What lawsuit are you thinking of in which the ACLU/NAACP/EFF/etc privately backed a litigant?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-t...
> Roy D. Simon, a professor emeritus of legal ethics at Hofstra University School of Law, suggested that the practice has helped “level the playing field” by providing resources for people to mount cases against big institutions that would be impossible otherwise.
http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/thiel-gawker/
> Perhaps, this could be solved by disclosure: Isn’t it in everyone’s interest to know when people like Thiel are behind a lawsuit? As it turns out, no one has to say a thing. According to Burford Capital, a litigation company whose clients include banks and hedge funds, the law is “perfectly clear … there is no obligation to disclose litigation financing arrangements.”
FWIW, I checked up on the latest news regarding Thiel vs. Gawker. They are currently in bankruptcy proceedings. In June, the court agreed to let Gawker subpoena Thiel and do discovery on Thiel's relationship with Hogan's lawyer:
> Judge Stuart Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan ruled Tuesday that Gawker has established cause for examining Mr. Thiel’s relationship with the lawyer, Charles Harder. Gawker seeks evidence, if any exists, that Mr. Thiel conspired with Mr. Harder to destroy the media company, which could be used to build a lawsuit against the billionaire venture capitalist.
IANAL, and I haven't read anything that has explained the best-case scenario for Gawker, in terms of what evidence it would have to find, and what actions it could take. But apparently there was some merit to Gawker's claim that Thiel's role was problematic.
A Buzzfeed reporter who is covering the case tweeted that Thiel potentially could be damaged by this Stanford Politics story: https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/935214376155365378
One of the supposedly problematic passages from the Stanford Politics article:
> On Oct. 28, 2015, several months before Thiel was revealed to be the funder of a lawsuit that bankrupted renegade media company Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007, the Stanford grad (BA ’89, JD ’92) giddily told several Stanford undergraduates in a private meeting at his San Francisco home about his imminent destruction of what he called a “universally reviled organization.” Four undergrads present at the meeting confirmed the story, a seemingly out-of-character — however vague — disclosure from the quite private Thiel. But why would he divulge such a thing to a small group of students? And why was he meeting with them in the first place?
Assuming that the SP's reporting on this is accurate, Thiel seems to have been way too overconfident in his private meetups with Stanford students. Again, this may end up being nothing in terms of Gawker's last-ditch legal fight, but for Thiel to gloat to students about his secret legal actions seems really dumb and careless. Hopefully (for his sake), he didn't say much more than that to Stanford students about the Gawker case.
Why is this an issue? It happens all the time in the other direction -- large corporations who hire leagues of lawyers to draw out proceedings for even the most open-and-shut cases. As quoted elsewhere in this discussion:
The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
I provided one example where Thiel being an individual has affected the Hogan v. Gawker legal proceedings. Gawker was able to convince the court that Thiel's relationship to Charles Harder, Hogan's lawyer, was worth investigating, and Thiel/Harder fought hard to block that. Is this something that happens to groups like the ACLU? Maybe, again, IANAL.
Also while we may know that these organizations are funding this legal battle, we don't know who is ultimately funding these organizations. It is certainly possible that a random billionaire donated money and earmarked it for this specific cause. Would it be more acceptable to you if Thiel created some dummy non-profit, donated money to it, and then had that organization publicly back the lawsuit? That likely would have had the same end result and might have even nabbed Thiel a decent tax break.
[1] - https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-aclu-media-conference...
990s give some hint, but yes, individual donors aren't revealed (as they are for campaign contributions). OK, but the fact remains that we can see these orgs have, among other things, a bureaucracy. Let's say Soros (or insert your favorite villain here) is the sole funder behind ACLU. The ACLU provides cover for him, but the tradeoff is that there are more moving parts (i.e. the people in the organization) and less efficiency in action. And so this tactic is probably a lot more trouble than it's worth.
In terms of your hypothetical situation of Thiel creating a dummy non-profit org -- is your question rhetorical? Sure, I guess it would "please" the Thiel detractors because doing such a thing properly takes a considerable amount of time and planning (you can't just make up names to add to your 990, for example). And if you were to rush the scheme -- well, as you've already pointed out, that would put Thiel at risk of being nabbed for something tax-fraud related.
Does this help to answer one of your earlier questions (sorry, too lazy to climb the thread tree to look it up) about why some folks have more of an issue with an agenda-driven individual than with an agenda-driven organization? It's hard for an organization to exist as a public entity without stating some kind of agenda. The agenda of an individual is much more opaque. And while it's true that an organization can be completely subverted and controlled by a powerful private individual, there's a lot of work to set that up, and a lot of disadvantages even if you're successful. Hence, it is considered less of a potential problem.
So I don't buy into the notion that, simply because Gawker was found guilty by a court of law, we should not consider their side of things.
They literally published an article about how they're ignoring a court order over the matter: http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
They needed to go, and they were not a net positive to society.
The best quote on the topic (pretty sure I saved it from a HN comment) I've seen is:
> The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
As for "sexually harass others via their platform" .... what does that even mean? Who? How, exactly? What a bizarre comment.