4 ms·
Basically any influence by 'extremely wealthy' is automatically viewed as an attack on 'freedom'. It's a straw-man political argument.
by capkutay 10y ago
Basically any influence by 'extremely wealthy' is automatically viewed as an attack on 'freedom'. It's a straw-man political argument.
- c3534l 10y agoI think the influence that money has on our judicial system is a big concern. The threat of frivolous legal action has a very real chilling effect on freedom of speech. The legal system in the US disproportionately favors the wealthy and this is a legitimate concern. I think that in this case Thiel is warranted here, but no I don't like that wealthy people get to sue people to get their way. The costs of litigation should be minimal and the outcome unbiased by money. However, that's not the case and it's a travesty. I don't think this is simply a case of hatred for the "extremely wealthy."
- elevenfist 10y agoNo one gave him the authority to control speech. He has money, but we didn't give him the authority to do this. I honestly hope you are wealthy and this viewpoint supports some sort of authoritarian self-interest. Or you're not American I guess.
- abiox 10y agohe isn't "controlling speech". the courts are, by rendering judgement on whether gawker did something that warrants some penalty.
- shawn-furyan 10y agoMan hours have a direct impact in court cases. Therefore money is a thumb on the scales of justice.
- abiox 10y agothis is (if i take "man hours" to mean resources spent on case preparation) an emergent property of for-profit mercenary lawyering. that being said, sometimes the thumb is doing good work - or at least, doing necessary work in pursuing positive outcomes.
- meric 10y agoYes, influence of extremely wealthy should ideally be limited to financial, and in consumption, instead of in information and politics.