4 ms·
Bolea is the only one who could make all those choices. Those are his rights, and if he chooses to (or not to) screw Gawker over with legal strategy, that's hi
by Natsu 10y ago
Bolea is the only one who could make all those choices. Those are his rights, and if he chooses to (or not to) screw Gawker over with legal strategy, that's his decision. Neither you nor I can make that for him and unless he complains about it, the entire discussion is pure nonsense.
I have no reason to believe that Bolea couldn't have funded the lawsuit himself. Bolea has no obligation (and no reason) to do things in a way friendly to Gawker. I find it highly believable that he himself asked his lawyers to screw Gawker over even if it got him less cash. More money != more justice. And inasmuch as this puts a chilling effect on publications that spy on people's private sex life, I honestly don't have a problem. There's no news here. Just perverts who want to spy on a celebrity.
You can't just go out and manufacture lawsuits--at least, not without getting yourself in trouble in court when they're found bogus. Someone has to have some kind of case or they get laughed out of court. He might be willing to fund suits, but they won't go anywhere and at least some of the time one can recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees on victory.
So call me when he funds something clearly meritless. The funding has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of what Gawker did, therefore it should not affect the case outcome.
So yes, the merits of the suit are relevant. Funding tons of bogus suits is clearly different from helping Gawker's victims seek justice. And so far, evidence points to the latter.
- wpietri 10y agoYou don't seem to understand that Thiel has funded more than one lawsuit. Of course, you also don't seem to know how to spell Bollea's name, so maybe you haven't been following this all that closely. But yes, meritless lawsuits pursued because of personal agendas are an actual threat to First Amendment rights. Which is why anti-SLAPP statues have become necessary, and why 28 states have passed them in recent decades. As a NY Supreme Court justice wrote about strategic use of meritless lawsuits: "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." Thiel has found a new twist, where he can assault public participation without actually being a plaintiff. But he poses a very similar threat. And yes, of course I can complain. Thiel is creating a systemic distortion around publishing the same way, e.g., tobacco companies funded systemic distortions of science. That the individual scientists have a right to free speech does not mean that I can't complain about how they use it. Or complain vociferously about the tobacco companies' damage to science, no matter how much they mewl about "fairness" and "seeing both sides". As a citizen, it's my job to make sure our democracy keeps working.