6 ms·

I don't know enough about the case at hand to comment specifically, but arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legiti

I don't know enough about the case at hand to comment specifically, but arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the general case. Keep in mind that selectively punishing common legal violations is a common censorship tactic in many places. Consider this case in Mexico: "On 12 March 2015, two journalists from MVS, Daniel Lizárraga and Irving Huerta, were fired after they used the station's brand name without permission in a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Aristegui#Second_firing_from_MVS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Aristegui#Second_firing... The legal case, of course, focused on "used the station's brand name without permission". But the actual reason for their dismissal was "a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption". Now, I am not saying the Gawker case is or isn't appropriate, but the intent of the parties matters, if not legally, then morally. When you are using a lawsuit, not to redress a wrong, but to attack a rival, the fact that the letter of the law is on your side doesn't make your actions ethical. This is specially true for governments, but there is no reason why it might not true for individuals as well (wealthy or not).

argonaut 10y ago
But what's the solution to this problem? Ban wealthy people from financing lawsuits? That's never going to happen. What about ban people with malicious intent from financing the lawsuits? You'll rarely be able to prove the intent.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  We formerly had laws on the books banning this very thing.. Read into champerty: http://qz.com/692312/billionaire-peter-thiels-attack-on-gawker-is-called-champerty-and-it-used-to-be-illegal/ http://qz.com/692312/billionaire-peter-thiels-attack-on-gawk...
  - argonaut 10y ago
    Yes, that why I said "Ban wealthy people from financing lawsuits? That's never going to happen." Reinstitution of maintenance/champerty laws will never politically happen. It means banning donations to the ACLU or EFF or NRA or union legal fund, etc. Good luck with that politically.
eudox 10y ago
The kind of situation you mention is more likely to happen in situations where the laws are so numerous, anyone who is an enemy of the government can be legally imprisoned for something. And while the US certainly is in that situation, this is clearly not such a case, because Bollea v. Gakwer was not arguing some obscure legal esoterica.
Natsu 10y ago
> arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the general case. In which specific cases is it illegitimate? The only answer I've been able to come up with is "when you don't like the person or cause." I mean, if anyone wants to condemn the general case, please remember that you'll be condemning the EFF, ACLU and many similar organizations. He could not have done anything at all to them if the cases were not meritorious. Now, there is a serious problem wherein access to the courts is effectively gated by wealth, but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Gawker was unable to afford lawyers. One can, however, point to their violation of court orders, along with their admission in court that they would publish sex tapes for anyone over 4, as evidence that they have no one to blame but themselves for their loss in court.
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit (which I agree is hard to prove one way or the other in court) and whether or not you do so openly versus secretly. In the case of the EFF and ACLU, their goal is not to swamp government agencies with lawsuits to the point they close down, or to hurt them economically, their goal is usually either: a) to help someone redress a wrong where they actually care about the wrong or b) to set legal precedent towards a particular policy they support. I would say there is absolutely no problem if Thiel is funding the lawsuit because he considers Gawker publishing Hogan's tape to be unethical and wants to help Hogan redress that wrong. Although I would perhaps have wanted that disclosed as part of the trial. On the other hand, if Thiel would have funded any lawsuit against Gawker that had a chance, regardless of the other party or the particulars of the case, with the objective of forcing Gawker to shutdown or in order to punish them, then it can be a problem. As another comment pointed out, the hard thing here is that you cannot always tell one from the other. Perhaps strong funding sources disclosure requirements represent a reasonable improvement?
  - Natsu 10y ago
    > It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. The motive is something that exists only in his head--people can, and will, invent motives consistent with whatever their opinion of a person is. Insofar as there's an argument that lawsuit funding should be open, well, I submit that perhaps the laws on that should be changed if this is truly at issue.
darkarmani 10y ago
> On 12 March 2015, two journalists from MVS, Daniel Lizárraga and Irving Huerta, were fired after they used the station's brand name without permission in a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption They were fired. What does that have to do with legal cases?

argonaut 10y ago

But what's the solution to this problem? Ban wealthy people from financing lawsuits? That's never going to happen. What about ban people with malicious intent from financing the lawsuits? You'll rarely be able to prove the intent.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mikeyouse 10y ago
We formerly had laws on the books banning this very thing.. Read into champerty: http://qz.com/692312/billionaire-peter-thiels-attack-on-gawker-is-called-champerty-and-it-used-to-be-illegal/ http://qz.com/692312/billionaire-peter-thiels-attack-on-gawk...
- argonaut 10y ago
  Yes, that why I said "Ban wealthy people from financing lawsuits? That's never going to happen." Reinstitution of maintenance/champerty laws will never politically happen. It means banning donations to the ACLU or EFF or NRA or union legal fund, etc. Good luck with that politically.

eudox 10y ago

The kind of situation you mention is more likely to happen in situations where the laws are so numerous, anyone who is an enemy of the government can be legally imprisoned for something. And while the US certainly is in that situation, this is clearly not such a case, because Bollea v. Gakwer was not arguing some obscure legal esoterica.

Natsu 10y ago

> arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the general case. In which specific cases is it illegitimate? The only answer I've been able to come up with is "when you don't like the person or cause." I mean, if anyone wants to condemn the general case, please remember that you'll be condemning the EFF, ACLU and many similar organizations. He could not have done anything at all to them if the cases were not meritorious. Now, there is a serious problem wherein access to the courts is effectively gated by wealth, but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Gawker was unable to afford lawyers. One can, however, point to their violation of court orders, along with their admission in court that they would publish sex tapes for anyone over 4, as evidence that they have no one to blame but themselves for their loss in court.

lazaroclapp 10y ago
It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit (which I agree is hard to prove one way or the other in court) and whether or not you do so openly versus secretly. In the case of the EFF and ACLU, their goal is not to swamp government agencies with lawsuits to the point they close down, or to hurt them economically, their goal is usually either: a) to help someone redress a wrong where they actually care about the wrong or b) to set legal precedent towards a particular policy they support. I would say there is absolutely no problem if Thiel is funding the lawsuit because he considers Gawker publishing Hogan's tape to be unethical and wants to help Hogan redress that wrong. Although I would perhaps have wanted that disclosed as part of the trial. On the other hand, if Thiel would have funded any lawsuit against Gawker that had a chance, regardless of the other party or the particulars of the case, with the objective of forcing Gawker to shutdown or in order to punish them, then it can be a problem. As another comment pointed out, the hard thing here is that you cannot always tell one from the other. Perhaps strong funding sources disclosure requirements represent a reasonable improvement?
- Natsu 10y ago
  > It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. The motive is something that exists only in his head--people can, and will, invent motives consistent with whatever their opinion of a person is. Insofar as there's an argument that lawsuit funding should be open, well, I submit that perhaps the laws on that should be changed if this is truly at issue.

darkarmani 10y ago

> On 12 March 2015, two journalists from MVS, Daniel Lizárraga and Irving Huerta, were fired after they used the station's brand name without permission in a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption They were fired. What does that have to do with legal cases?