Gawker Media is kill!

@cola:

Sorry, didn't see your edit. Gawker covers a lot more press than you'd think. I don't always rate Kotaku either but it's a solid outlet for video games (like most sites, the worth of the article massively varies on its author).

For a comparison, this is like taking down most of the Murdoch Group (or whatever it's called these days) while ignoring the fact that they own the entire Sky set.

@tehtrekd:

You need to study "legal precedent", I feel.

Peter Thiel has a personal grudge against the outlet. Regardless of the valid case against said outlet, that is also still a legal conflict of interest. Judges have been recused from cases for less.

All you're doing is attempting to confirm your own bias against Gawker. I don't like Gawker, and I don't care that they've lost money. I care about the ethics of the actual prosecution and how it was funded.

As a final point, I'd rather you not call me "paranoid". Paranoid is assuming jet fuel melts steel beams. This is a lot more obvious than that particular nutjob conspiracy.

I dunno why that is a "conflict" of interest. Maybe I am missing a detail of the case, my understanding is this happened:

1. Gawker did a very bad thing
2. The victim tried to fight back
3. Thiel, seeing a chance to damage a media outlet he dislikes, jumped in to ensure success

Where is the conflict of interest? Thiel had one simple interest: Pwn Gawker?! For a conflict of interest Thiel would need to be in a situation were he is supposed to defend Gawker? Was he in such a position?
Gawker nicely provided him with a pretty valid reason to damage them.

The damage sum... well the USA really have it for ridiculous monetary payments in cases like these. Weird for sure.

Everything around "seeing a chance to damage a media outlet he dislikes" is the conflict of interest.

If a judge has a personal reason for wanting a perpetrator behind bars, they should be recused. This is the easiest, most direct example I can bring that vaguely makes sense in a court case. Just like a police officer shouldn't handle a case if they count as being personally involved. Or like I shouldn't offer my coworkers sexual favours just because I find them attractive (or for any reason, but I thought I'd throw an Obviously Bad example in there).

Anything relating to "I'm doing this for personal reasons" is unethical and in most workplaces (and systems) have rules to prevent them from happening.

I can't even take a basket of fruit from a client as a thankyou. Nor can I refuse to do work for one if I found one intolerable for any reason (good or bad).

Do my examples make sense? Can you see the links to the case in question? I'm being sincere, analogies are always a pain

I think I understand what you're trying to get at, but I see it in a different light.
Thiel wasn't the judge. He is a person angry at Gawker for whatever reason. They probably were not nice to him in the past somehow?
Sure if the judge personally dislikes the perpetrator while at the same time having to judge them fairly that would be a conflict of interest. Or if you take personal favors from clients you work with professionally, which can easily come close to bribery.

But with Thiel it was clear he was in it to damage Gawker. And that's the only interest he had. No conflict possible. Just like Hogan had an interest to get back at Gawker as well.
So I really don't see a problem. If a chance opens up to attack something you dislike why not take it? I knew I would.

If you have a professional obligation to act in a specific way you can't just mix in your personal reasons I agree. But afaik Thiel had no professional obligation here whatsoever. And when you have no professional obligation that makes you act then you either sit there and do nothing, or you go and act based on your personal reasons.

EDIT:
Another thought: A conflict not only requires you to be in a situation where your personal interest and your professional obligation somehow touch the some subject, but they really need to conflict. For a judge that means they can't have any ties to anyone involved in a case they are judging. But for a lawyer that is already different, I'd assume it is fine if a lawyer who defending a person has a personal interest to defend the person as well? At least I can't see a problem if personal interest and professional obligation perfectly align like that. All it can do is make the person work harder.

You're saying that when the Telegraph does that, it needs to be shut down, it's parent company and all sibling companies need to be shut down?

The question if 100 million$ was the right penalty is an entirely different question.
I agree it is questionably high, as I said before.