but back in 2016, an online website gawker— but back in 2016, an online website gawker was— but backillions— still that cost the new york times millions of— still that cost the new york times millions of dollars to defend and took all— millions of dollars to defend and took all of its editors to come into court _ took all of its editors to come into court and — took all of its editors to come into court and testify about the process behind _ court and testify about the process behind their stories. it was a very real hassle — behind their stories. it was a very real hassle for the new york times. and it could — real hassle for the new york times. and it could conceivably have a chilling — and it could conceivably have a chilling effect on how american meeting — chilling effect on how american meeting copy as —— american media companies _ meeting copy as —— american media companies cover politicians. meeting copy as -- american media companies cover politicians.- companies cover politicians. should libel laws even _ companies cover politicians. should libel laws even matter _ companie

this was unsaid but gawker had also been very critical of teal and teal's. and and the thing about this that that makes it difficult and i would argue kind of insidious is that it's so you can argue about whether about gawker right gawker did not behave in in the best way and and and journalists and one of the things about free speech, right is that you sort of have to be okay with it even when you don't agree with it, but but what this did is it creates like a chilling effect where it made of course my life more difficult trying to write this book because every source i would talk to sort of like afraid that like if they say something negative, you know, maybe peter teal secretly. sue them 10 years later. um, but but of course any billionaire can can employ this and and there's no reason why you know another wealthy person could come after a journalist, you know down the road and we're seeing it happening. we just saw this lawsuit that sarah palin brought against the new york times the times prevailed but it's a lot of the same lawyers who are involved in t

this was unsaid but gawker had also been very critical of teal and teal's. and and the thing about this that that makes it difficult and i would argue kind of insidious is that it's so you can argue about whether about gawker right gawker did not behave in in the best way and and and journalists and one of the things about free speech, right is that you sort of have to be okay with it even when you don't agree with it, but but what this did is it creates like a chilling effect where it made of course my life more difficult trying to write this book because every source i would talk to sort of like afraid that like if they say something negative, you know, maybe peter teal secretly. sue them 10 years later. um, but but of course any billionaire can can employ this and and there's no reason why you know another wealthy person could come after a journalist, you know down the road and we're seeing it happening. we just saw this lawsuit that sarah palin brought against the new york times the times prevailed but it's a lot of the same lawyers who are involved in t