5 ms·

> 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 ca

by 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.
  - lazaroclapp 10y ago
    "Dear members of the jury, please be aware that the accuser is partly supported by third-party X, who has conflicts of interest Y, Z and W with the accused." is all I am asking for. > Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. For the record, I am far more pro-Thiel than I am pro-Gawker, although I base my judgement only on their public reputations. I am actually more concerned about the general idea than the specific parties in this case, and I think the result of the suit is correct, I just wonder about the means and the precedent that you can use a third-party's legitimate complaint to launch a punitive lawsuit.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Natsu 10y ago
      That would tend to introduce biases in the case. Court cases are not supposed to be about the people, but the events that happened. Many aspects of the court system deliberately attempt to remove such information from jurors to avoid such biases. That said, I tend to think it should be a public record outside of court at least.
    - darawk 10y ago
      In what way would that knowledge aid the jury in coming to an impartial verdict? Peter Thiel had and has nothing to do with the case itself. The facts and merits of the actual case are unchanged by his involvement and as such this information is immaterial.
wpietri 10y ago
> He could not have done anything at all to them if the cases were not meritorious. That's not true at all. One jury verdict (before appeals have been heard) plus a bunch of nascent suits is no proof of eventual merit. It could be that every single one of those cases eventually ends up getting dismissed, or being awarded negligible verdicts. But because Gawker may not be able to afford a full defense, they could well be out of business. Long-time financial journalist Felix Salmon points out the issues here: https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/735662530903826437 https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/735662530903826437 You also write like somebody who has never been on the receiving end of a lawsuit. They are a painful multi-year distraction and expense even if you win. My mom was on the receiving end of a lawsuit after a business deal gone bad. Eventually she won on all counts, and after he had finished reading his verdict, the judge gave both the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer a royal dressing down for wasting the court's time. But the stress was incredible for the whole family, and we still had to pay the defense bills. It was not cheap. And in Gawker's case, defending themselves against $10m worth of lawyering could well take them at least $10m no matter the outcome of the cases. News is not a business rolling in money; publishers go out of business every day even without being forced to burn unlimited millions. I can and will seriously argue that Gawker will be unable to afford defense lawyers long before Thiel will be unable afford lawyers playing offense.
- Natsu 10y ago
  > But because Gawker may not be able to afford a full defense, they could well be out of business. They had lawyers. They had their defense. They can appeal, but they have no one but themselves to blame for going to court and asserting the right to publish stolen sex tapes of anyone over 4... and for violating a court order. Inasmuch as there are problems here, they're with the legal system in general, not this suit specifically. Rather, it reminds me more of the McDonald's hot coffee thing, where if they had been reasonable, they wouldn't have been hit so hard.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    > Inasmuch as there are problems here, they're with the legal system in general, not this suit specifically. To me that's like saying, "Inasmuch as there are problems with this massive data breach, they're with computer security in general, not the thief in specific." Sure, there's a broader problem. But that doesn't mean that people willing to take advantage of a problem aren't also a problem. When many factors contribute to a bad outcome, it's worth looking at every factor when trying to fix the problem.

by Natsu 10y ago

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.
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  "Dear members of the jury, please be aware that the accuser is partly supported by third-party X, who has conflicts of interest Y, Z and W with the accused." is all I am asking for. > Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. For the record, I am far more pro-Thiel than I am pro-Gawker, although I base my judgement only on their public reputations. I am actually more concerned about the general idea than the specific parties in this case, and I think the result of the suit is correct, I just wonder about the means and the precedent that you can use a third-party's legitimate complaint to launch a punitive lawsuit.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Natsu 10y ago
    That would tend to introduce biases in the case. Court cases are not supposed to be about the people, but the events that happened. Many aspects of the court system deliberately attempt to remove such information from jurors to avoid such biases. That said, I tend to think it should be a public record outside of court at least.
  - darawk 10y ago
    In what way would that knowledge aid the jury in coming to an impartial verdict? Peter Thiel had and has nothing to do with the case itself. The facts and merits of the actual case are unchanged by his involvement and as such this information is immaterial.

wpietri 10y ago

> He could not have done anything at all to them if the cases were not meritorious. That's not true at all. One jury verdict (before appeals have been heard) plus a bunch of nascent suits is no proof of eventual merit. It could be that every single one of those cases eventually ends up getting dismissed, or being awarded negligible verdicts. But because Gawker may not be able to afford a full defense, they could well be out of business. Long-time financial journalist Felix Salmon points out the issues here: https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/735662530903826437 https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/735662530903826437 You also write like somebody who has never been on the receiving end of a lawsuit. They are a painful multi-year distraction and expense even if you win. My mom was on the receiving end of a lawsuit after a business deal gone bad. Eventually she won on all counts, and after he had finished reading his verdict, the judge gave both the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer a royal dressing down for wasting the court's time. But the stress was incredible for the whole family, and we still had to pay the defense bills. It was not cheap. And in Gawker's case, defending themselves against $10m worth of lawyering could well take them at least $10m no matter the outcome of the cases. News is not a business rolling in money; publishers go out of business every day even without being forced to burn unlimited millions. I can and will seriously argue that Gawker will be unable to afford defense lawyers long before Thiel will be unable afford lawyers playing offense.

Natsu 10y ago
> But because Gawker may not be able to afford a full defense, they could well be out of business. They had lawyers. They had their defense. They can appeal, but they have no one but themselves to blame for going to court and asserting the right to publish stolen sex tapes of anyone over 4... and for violating a court order. Inasmuch as there are problems here, they're with the legal system in general, not this suit specifically. Rather, it reminds me more of the McDonald's hot coffee thing, where if they had been reasonable, they wouldn't have been hit so hard.
- wpietri 10y ago
  > Inasmuch as there are problems here, they're with the legal system in general, not this suit specifically. To me that's like saying, "Inasmuch as there are problems with this massive data breach, they're with computer security in general, not the thief in specific." Sure, there's a broader problem. But that doesn't mean that people willing to take advantage of a problem aren't also a problem. When many factors contribute to a bad outcome, it's worth looking at every factor when trying to fix the problem.