BASED Peter Thiel Bankrolls Hulk Hogan Against Gawker

forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/05/24/this-silicon-valley-billionaire-has-been-secretly-funding-hulk-hogans-lawsuits-against-gawker/#58bcce378057

archive.is/BhZAQ
Peter Thiel, a PayPal cofounder and one of the earliest backers of Facebook, has been secretly covering the expenses for Hulk Hogan’s lawsuits against online news organization Gawker Media. According to people familiar with the situation who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, Thiel, a cofounder and partner at Founders Fund, has played a lead role in bankrolling the cases Terry Bollea, a.k.a. Hogan, brought against New York-based Gawker. Hogan is being represented by Charles Harder, a prominent Los Angeles-based lawyer.

A spokesperson for Thiel declined to comment.

The involvement of Thiel, an eccentric figure in Silicon Valley who has advocated for teenagers to skip college and openly supported Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, adds another wrinkle to a case that has garnered widespread attention for its implications over celebrity privacy and a publication’s First Amendment rights. During court proceedings, which ended in late March with a $140 million victory for Hogan, there had been rumors that a wealthy individual had funded Hogan’s case though there was never any hard evidence that surfaced to prove that was true.

PETER THIEL DESTROYING LEFTIST MEDIA

Other urls found in this thread:

hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-upholds-hulk-hogans-140-897301
archive.is/qxdsk
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-25/billionaires-are-allowed-to-pay-for-people-to-sue-their-enemies
thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/libertarian-billionaire-peter-thiel-admits-funding-hulk-hogans-suit-gawker/
nypost.com/2016/05/26/gawker-founder-looking-to-sell-after-losing-hogan-judgment/
archive.is/D1Xw8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nice.

...

I thought Thiel was a lolberg?

Is Peter Thiel actually based or controlled opposition?

Peter "good goy CIA shill" Thiel huh?

How about you fuck off weeb.

Jesus fucking christ, out of the woodwork here come the shills to tell you why this anti-Gawker guy is bad and why this should be disregarded.

It's pro-hulk hogan. Shut the fuck up, renegade shills.

He's right, kill yourself jewboy.

Name one part where my post is wrong.
Also

Nice D&C faggot.


The biggest red flag is his membership to Bilderberg Group, user.

I don't think anyone will imply this is a bad thing, but IIRC Paypal has been good goying for a while now. Are we to forget that Paypal shut off payments to this site and Wikileaks, among others?

Yes they have.

Also FACEBOOK, one of the biggest problems in the world.

No, the point is that this rumor is started by "one anonymous source", and that source is Gawker.

They just had a trial session about this and they tried to claim Hogan's suit is unlwaful because someone is backing him, look, a billionaire we messed with is funding him..!

And the judge said literally "I don't even want to look, don't show it to me, don't believe everything on the internet" etc.

To be fair, Thiel sold off his control and shares years ago.

Seems like this guy knows how to back winners even if he's a bilderkike

True enough.

He is bad, obviously. He works for the CIA. On the day if the rope, he will be roped.

Post your face when Hulkmania ran wild on Gawker a few months back.

...

...

...

He could be the token non-globalist who is invited at Bilderberg just because he's a smart tech/internet billionaire or something like that. I don't know. He's probably smarter than Eric Schmidt and Bill Gates.

Besides the steering committee I don't think there's an official membership for the Bilderberg Group.

Just a short reminder he met with Curtis Yarvin, the guy who's writings kickstarted neoreaction.

It seems like his message hasn't been heard enough.

Nobody on Holla Forums cares about neoreaction because we aren't bourgeois scum.

No.

Sounds like a business man trying to destroy the competition aka Gawker.

You guys will call anyone based, if Netanyahu tomorrow came out in support of Trump would you call him based as well?

That's how I see it. The void can be filled with a cancer even worse than Gawker.

this happened today:

Judge Upholds Hulk Hogan's $140 Million Trial Victory Against Gawker

hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-upholds-hulk-hogans-140-897301

"After a review of the stunning verdict in March in Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker over the publishing of an excerpt of a sex tape, Florida Circuit Judge Pamela Campbell on Wednesday decided not to order a new trial nor touch the $140 million verdict.

(…)

Now that the judge has determined what Gawker must pay, the case moves to the appellate stage where the Nick Denton-owned company is set to rally behind free speech and free press under the First Amendment plus further argue that it didn't get a fair trial thanks to Campbell's jury instructions and evidence that the judge precluded from being heard. Hogan's battle with Gawker has certainly sent a loud message, but the lessons being drawn from this case are still being shaped.

As for Thiel, Gawker asked the judge for the opportunity to conduct discovery about who is funding Hogan."


It sounds like Gawker started the rumor that Peter Thiel was Hulk Hogan's backer.

Peter Thiel is based. He wrote this:

archive.is/qxdsk

"The Case Against Affirmative Action"

If, after 25 years, affirmative action has not succeeded in ending discrimination, perhaps it is time to try something else.

By David Sacks & Peter Thiel

Over the past quarter of a century, Stanford has been discriminating in favor of racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting and financial aid. But only recently has the University been forced to rethink these policies in the face of an emerging public debate over affirmative action.

We are beginning to see why. Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality…"

(Continued)

(Continued)

"Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers). If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.

Another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in Richard herrnstein and Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve.

The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences – why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? – has led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote "diversity." This same push for "diversity" also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies.

But if "diversity" were really the goal, then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race. The underlying assumption – that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives – is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way.

What's gone wrong? The basic problem is that a racist past cannot be undone through more racism. Race-conscious programs betray Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind community, and the heightened racial sensitivity they cause is a source of acrimony and tension instead of healing.

When University officials boast of "looking for racism everywhere," as multicultural educator Greg Ricks did in a 1990 Stanford Daily interview, then perhaps the most sensible (and certainly the most predictable) response will be for white students to avoid dealing with such quarrelsome people. In this way, the stress on "diversity" has made interracial interaction strained and superficial; multiculturalism has caused political correctness.

None of this is to deny that there are some people in America who are racist and that there are some features of American life that are legacies of a much more racist past. But racism is not everywhere, and there is very little at a place like Stanford. Certainly, no one has accused Stanford's admissions officers of being racist, so perhaps the real problem with affirmative action is that we are pretending to solve a problem that no longer exists. Moreover, there is a growing sense that if affirmative action has not succeeded in ending discrimination after 25 years of determined implementation, then perhaps it is time to try something else.

Although Stanford's admissions office cannot undo the wrongs of history, its mission is still very important – namely, admitting the best class of students it can find. The sole criterion in finding the members of this class and in defining "merit" should be individual achievement – not just grades and test scores, of course, but a broad range of accomplishments, in athletics, music, student government, drama, school clubs and other extracurricular efforts. But race and ethnicity (or gender or sexual preference) do not have a place on this list; these are traits, not achievements.

Perhaps the most tragic side effect of affirmative action is that very significant achievements of minority students can become compromised. It is often not possible to tell whether a given student genuinely deserved admission to Stanford, or whether he is there by virtue of fitting into some sort of diversity matrix. When people do start to suspect the worst – that preferences have skewed the entire class – they are accused of the very racism that justifies these preferences. It is a strange cure that generates its own disease.

A Stanford without affirmative action will be a Stanford in which the question of who belongs here will no longer need to be answered. It will no longer need to be answered because it will no longer need to be asked, not even sotto voce ."

You mean Mencius "The Court Jew" Moldbug aka "Why can't we just appoint a CEO as king and turn the country into a corporation?"

A bump for a very, very interesting connection and new info about Thiel.

Officially or unofficially? He does what exactly?

That isn't based. It's normal cuckservative/libertardianism. He even goes on about the poor minorities being hurt by affirmative action.

Officially. It is common knowledge that is even on his Wikipedia.

All of these paypal pseudo-kikes like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are in with the government. Shell corporations for black budget money laundering and government technology initiatives.

Even if it's true that Peter Thiel helped Hulk Hogan it's entirely legal. And it seems to be a personal vendetta:

Billionaires Are Allowed to Pay for People to Sue Their Enemies

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-25/billionaires-are-allowed-to-pay-for-people-to-sue-their-enemies

By contrast, Thiel’s vendetta against Gawker is uncomfortably personal. His beef with Gawker dates at least to 2007, when the website outed him as gay. Hogan's lawsuit similarly accused Gawker of treating his private life as news—in this case by publishing a video of the former wrestler having sex with a friend's wife. By quietly backing the lawsuit, which ended in a $140 million jury verdict, Thiel has left the impression that his real aim is to put Gawker out of business as vengeance.

There's no question that Thiel is allowed to pay someone else’s legal bills, says Clay Calvert, the director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida. Nonprofit organizations often work pro bono for individuals who want to take on institutions with ample financial resources, he notes. “He’s entitled to fund this, and the lawsuit was obviously not frivolous,” he said. “Hogan won in front of a jury.”

Wut. Gawker isn't competition for this guy, or anyone really. It's a stupid online gossip rag (or was) that posts anything they think will generate clicks. Where do you geniuses come up with these ideas?

maybe he's behind some other clickbait site or wants to start one?

Or maybe he is just a Hulkamaniac?

If you grew up in the 1980's there really is no bigger hero then him. He wasn't degenerate.He was nice to everyone.
Did tons of PSA's, cartoons, charities…

If I was rich I would help out the Hulk to go after the company that ruined his legacy. Funding this legal battle is pocket change for a billionaire. If it was REALLY about just killing Gawker he could have just bought out that shithole company and closed the doors. This is more about public vengeance for the Hulk. He will kill Gawker and ruin everyone involved with it.

*Menschius "Hoffjuden" Moldberg

Perhaps the final straw was Mr. T's death?

He's Alt-Right

Libertarian Billionaire Peter Thiel Admits Funding Hulk Hogan’s Suit Against Gawker

thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/libertarian-billionaire-peter-thiel-admits-funding-hulk-hogans-suit-gawker/

They outed him as gay, so if it is true then it's probably because of that.

He walks with Christ, fool!.

Payback is a bitch.

I agree, this was personal. That makes a lot more sense than a billionaire trying to destroy a shitty clickbait site because he want to start his own shitty clickbait site.

...

I've been waiting for today.
Here's Dentons phone number.

nypost.com/2016/05/26/gawker-founder-looking-to-sell-after-losing-hogan-judgment/

who the fuck would want to buy gawker??

...

Holla Forums should buy it.

Y?

eBay founder backing Gawker’s appeal of Hulk sex tape verdict
archive.is/D1Xw8

The plot thickens… I understand Thiel's motivation, as gawker has published bs on him being gay. But what is the ebay connection? According to this article i know, citing new york post he is just a liberal douche squirt who hates Thiel personally. I think there is something else though.