4 ms·

> 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,

by 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.
- Natsu 10y ago
  If that's the case, then everyone who presents a legitimate claim in court is part of the problem. It's not like there's some alternative to the legal system he could've used to address his grievances. Moreover, opting out of using the legal system does nothing to improve matters for others. This was not some meritless nuisance suit, as should be evident by the fact that he won. The broader problem is when people do things like spam settlement offers for less than the cost of defense, or the fact that the legal system is so expensive to operate to begin with. But none of these can rightfully be blamed on Bolea, so your analogy is simply faulty. There's no "abuse" here to begin with: he had a valid legal claim and won on the merits in court. It is telling that as much as you wax poetic about abusing the court system, you failed to acknowledge that Gawker is the one who violated a court order here. I mean, if winning a meritorious case is what you count as "abuse" of the legal system, exactly how do you rate that?
  - wpietri 10y ago
    I don't have an issue with Bollea. I have an issue with Thiel. Thiel did not have a legitimate claim in court, but he is still using his billions to destroy a news organization he does not like. I should say again that I am not interested in defending Gawker here; I think Denton's an ass. I think Nazis are terrible too, but I think it's worth defending both their and Gawker's First Amendment rights.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      Right, but you'd have to rule against Bolea, who was wronged, to get to Thiel. All Thiel did was help Bolea. So if Bolea did nothing wrong, then you have nothing left to accuse Thiel of. You may not like his motives, but he didn't actually do anything but help someone wronged seek justice. Inasmuch as this creates a chilling effect to keep people from publishing stolen sex tapes... oh well.
      - wpietri 10y ago
        Thiel is willing to fund an effectively infinite number of lawsuits, and he is willing to lose large sums of money doing so. To destroy Gawker, none of the lawsuits have to win in the long term. The particular merits of Bollea's case are a red herring. Also, this is clearly wrong: "All Thiel did was help Bolea." [sic] Thiel clearly imposed conditions. The suit was specifically structured to exclude the insurance company, reducing Bollea's risk-adjusted odds of a payout. Bollea also turned down settlement offers, presumably at Thiel's behest. That clearly suits Thiel, whose goal is not helping anybody, but destroying Gawker. It's not clear it was really in Bollea's best interests; there are reasons most of these cases get settled. Far more of us now know about Bollea's adultery than if this had been quietly settled, which increases the reputational harm that's supposedly part of Bollea's reason for suing. And Bollea has had to actually go through a trial, which increases the emotional suffering that again was a putative problem. Thiel doesn't care here about helping people. Or even helping people who have been harmed by tabloid journalism. If he did, he would have structured it as something like the ACLU: transparent donations to a group of independent lawyers with a stated purpose, who then get to pick their own cases on the merits. What he cares about is destroying Gawker. Which is why he spent a decade secretly plotting and executing a series of lawsuits aimed to driving the company out of business.

by Natsu 10y ago

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.

Natsu 10y ago
If that's the case, then everyone who presents a legitimate claim in court is part of the problem. It's not like there's some alternative to the legal system he could've used to address his grievances. Moreover, opting out of using the legal system does nothing to improve matters for others. This was not some meritless nuisance suit, as should be evident by the fact that he won. The broader problem is when people do things like spam settlement offers for less than the cost of defense, or the fact that the legal system is so expensive to operate to begin with. But none of these can rightfully be blamed on Bolea, so your analogy is simply faulty. There's no "abuse" here to begin with: he had a valid legal claim and won on the merits in court. It is telling that as much as you wax poetic about abusing the court system, you failed to acknowledge that Gawker is the one who violated a court order here. I mean, if winning a meritorious case is what you count as "abuse" of the legal system, exactly how do you rate that?
- wpietri 10y ago
  I don't have an issue with Bollea. I have an issue with Thiel. Thiel did not have a legitimate claim in court, but he is still using his billions to destroy a news organization he does not like. I should say again that I am not interested in defending Gawker here; I think Denton's an ass. I think Nazis are terrible too, but I think it's worth defending both their and Gawker's First Amendment rights.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Right, but you'd have to rule against Bolea, who was wronged, to get to Thiel. All Thiel did was help Bolea. So if Bolea did nothing wrong, then you have nothing left to accuse Thiel of. You may not like his motives, but he didn't actually do anything but help someone wronged seek justice. Inasmuch as this creates a chilling effect to keep people from publishing stolen sex tapes... oh well.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      Thiel is willing to fund an effectively infinite number of lawsuits, and he is willing to lose large sums of money doing so. To destroy Gawker, none of the lawsuits have to win in the long term. The particular merits of Bollea's case are a red herring. Also, this is clearly wrong: "All Thiel did was help Bolea." [sic] Thiel clearly imposed conditions. The suit was specifically structured to exclude the insurance company, reducing Bollea's risk-adjusted odds of a payout. Bollea also turned down settlement offers, presumably at Thiel's behest. That clearly suits Thiel, whose goal is not helping anybody, but destroying Gawker. It's not clear it was really in Bollea's best interests; there are reasons most of these cases get settled. Far more of us now know about Bollea's adultery than if this had been quietly settled, which increases the reputational harm that's supposedly part of Bollea's reason for suing. And Bollea has had to actually go through a trial, which increases the emotional suffering that again was a putative problem. Thiel doesn't care here about helping people. Or even helping people who have been harmed by tabloid journalism. If he did, he would have structured it as something like the ACLU: transparent donations to a group of independent lawyers with a stated purpose, who then get to pick their own cases on the merits. What he cares about is destroying Gawker. Which is why he spent a decade secretly plotting and executing a series of lawsuits aimed to driving the company out of business.