From AEI, another helpful corrective for the common claim that American incomes have stagnated, this…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Yes, Incomes Have Risen

From AEI, another helpful corrective for the common claim that American incomes have stagnated, this one incorporating the fact that the average size of households has declined over recent decades:

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="1309"] Median Incomes[/caption]

 …[more]

September 20, 2019 • 09:16 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
The Liberal Case Against Peter Thiel is the Worst Kind of Hypocrisy Print
By David Harsanyi
Friday, June 10 2016
[T]he most infuriating hypocrisy of the entire Thiel kerfuffle is that many of those wringing their hands have no problem with the overall deteriorating attitude regarding free expression on the left.

We recently discovered that Peter Thiel, the libertarian billionaire co-founder of PayPal and early investor in Facebook, bankrolled wrestler Hulk Hogan's lawsuits against the blog network Gawker Media.

Now, as someone who considers himself a near-absolutist on free speech, I'm open to hearing arguments for why we need tort reform in these sorts of cases or why Hulk Hogan's suit undermines free expression. But so far, the media's hysteria about Thiel's third-party legal funding has been unconvincing, especially when we consider who's making the arguments.

After wading through thousands of angst-ridden words, I noticed that the case mostly boils down to two objections: Thiel's motivations and Thiel's money. And when I say Thiel, I mean Thiel. There is little anxiety over third-party funding when we're talking about the giant apparatus the left uses to implement its own will via the courts. Even more hypocritical is the fact that many of the same people so distressed about the future of sex tapes regularly advocate policies that would allow the state to inhibit political speech.

For instance, Ezra Klein, editor-in-chief of Vox, writes: "What's endangering Gawker is Thiel's endless resources, and his apparently limitless appetite for revenge. Those tools can be used by anyone with enough money, against any media target they choose, for any slight they perceive."

Thiel is "reinventing the concept of philanthropy so as to include weapons-grade attacks on America's free press," writes Felix Salmon on Fusion, who goes on to say that Thiel's success has essentially given other billionaires a blueprint of how to put critics out of business. Slate says Thiel is the bully here.

This would all be very upsetting if it were true.

There's a question that should not be lost in this debate: Is it an invasion of privacy to make public a sex tape  not a news story about a sexual indiscretion or a picture of a sexual indiscretion in a public place, but a movie of a person engaged in sex in private  without the consent of the person in it? In other words, was this lawsuit really "frivolous?" Not according to a judge. Not according to the jury that awarded Hogan more than $100 million. And not according to a Circuit court judge who upheld the verdict.

There's no doubt the judicial system has its share of ridiculous decisions, frivolous lawsuits and hyperlitigious troublemakers. So, what precedent has Thiel really set? Well, we've probably seen the end of sites posting private sex tapes without permission. If you're upset about the amount Gawker is on the hook for, let's talk about capping damages awards. But the contention that Thiel is abusing the system because of a "limitless appetite" for revenge would be a lot stronger if he didn't win the case.

Some rich people are motivated to act because they are slighted; others because of ideology, empathy or hate, or because there's a media outlet that believes it's OK to run celebrity sex tapes as long as the celebrity is not under the age of 4, as one Gawker editor claimed. So what?

Moreover, if liberal pundits felt some moral or ideological affinity toward Thiel's motivation, 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 those regarding 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 American Civil Liberties Union, which is backed by hundreds of 1 percenters and works to enforce its own norms of "decency and respect" when it comes boys' and girls' bathrooms, and leads crusades against the Free Exercise Clause.

By the way, Nick Denton, founder of Gawker Media, is also a 1 percenter. So are the owners of The New York Times and every other major media outlet you can think of. These 1 percenters can just as easily destroy lives, abuse their powerful positions and hire teams of lawyers. Sometimes the only way to fight back is to collectively fund an effort or find a third-party benefactor.

If press outlets feel that the sex tape case is worthy of a First Amendment fight, they could easily match Thiel's $10 million investment. Otherwise, what do these critics propose? Should we pass a law capping the amount of funding people with the last names "Thiel" and "Koch"  David Koch  can provide for lawsuits? Ban billionaires from participating in the legal system?

But the most infuriating hypocrisy of the entire Thiel kerfuffle is that many of those wringing their hands have no problem with the overall deteriorating attitude regarding free expression on the left. Some, in fact, actively argue for inhibiting free speech. I'm not just talking about the rampant illiberalism we see in institutions of higher learning, or the abuse of government officials who are attempting to punish Americans who are skeptical of liberal doctrine. Some of them would be perfectly content handing over far broader and more consequential powers of censorship to the state, allowing government to literally ban movies and books with political messages. That includes the institutional position at almost every liberal publication lamenting the actions of Peter Thiel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of "The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy." Copyright © 2016 Creators.com

Question of the Week   
On September 17 of which one of the following years was the U.S. Constitution sent to Congress for ratification by the states?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"So, let me get this absolutely straight ...Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada and arguably the most woke, virtue-signalling and PC-crazed leader in the history of Mankind -- or 'Peoplekind' as he insisted we rename it last year - turns out to have a rather cracked halo?Wow. I'm so shocked ...not.I've not met a high-horse rider yet who doesn't eventually tumble off into a pit of shameless…[more]
 
 
—Piers Morgan, Daily Mail
— Piers Morgan, Daily Mail
 
Liberty Poll   

Which level of football do you follow most closely?