4 ms·

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 ver

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.
    - wfo 10y ago
      Usually people bring civil suits in order to get justice for some wrong that has been done to them, not to get paid for being an instrument in the revenge fantasy of a billionaire. I think the jury certainly has a vested interest in knowing if the case is of the first type or the second. Society most definitely does. In this case it's the first. What those of us who are looking at this case with more long-term consequences in mind are worried about is the second.
      - Natsu 10y ago
        > Usually people bring civil suits in order to get justice for some wrong that has been done to them The jury can decide whether some wrong has been done based on the facts of the case itself. If some wrong has been done, that's true regardless of who footed the bill. If no wrong has been done, that's true regardless of who footed the bill. Judging cases based on who we do and do not like is something our justice system has been set up to avoid.
        wfo 10y ago

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.
  - wfo 10y ago
    Usually people bring civil suits in order to get justice for some wrong that has been done to them, not to get paid for being an instrument in the revenge fantasy of a billionaire. I think the jury certainly has a vested interest in knowing if the case is of the first type or the second. Society most definitely does. In this case it's the first. What those of us who are looking at this case with more long-term consequences in mind are worried about is the second.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      > Usually people bring civil suits in order to get justice for some wrong that has been done to them The jury can decide whether some wrong has been done based on the facts of the case itself. If some wrong has been done, that's true regardless of who footed the bill. If no wrong has been done, that's true regardless of who footed the bill. Judging cases based on who we do and do not like is something our justice system has been set up to avoid.
      - wfo 10y ago