2 ms·

The fundamental issue here is that rich people can buy the law. It's not as simple as bribery, but it's nearly as effective. The only defense we have against th

The fundamental issue here is that rich people can buy the law. It's not as simple as bribery, but it's nearly as effective. The only defense we have against that is when voters and jurors are educated and deeply suspicious of laws and litigation that are bought. Of course what Gawker did was reprehensible, but I don't need a million-dollar lawyer to tell me that. And when suddenly there is a million-dollar lawyer telling me that, I have to guess there's some other endgame here. My guess is that Thiel is building a template for future litigation. And while it happens to be good for justice in this case, I doubt it will always be so. That is definitely a bad thing.

Teeboo 10y ago
...if your premise is true then it is a damning indictment of Gawker. Not Thiel. This issue has been covered in detail. Hogan did not have the financial resources to combat the Gawker legal machine, funded from the company coffers. It took Thiel and his larger coffers to come along and upset their apple cart. So, if a rich person did buy the legal precedent, it was only until a richer person came along and restored sanity and parity to the system.
- devishard 10y ago
  In this case, yes, that's how I see it. But I don't trust Thiel just because he did the right thing this time. The underlying problem is that anyone, Thiel or Gawker, can buy the law.
whatok 10y ago
Let's say the girl in this video [0] decided to sue Gawker. I'm going to just assume that she doesn't have the means to stand up to their army of lawyers. Is Gawker the rich person buying the law in this hypothetical? [0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-editor-AJ-Daulerio-refused-college-girl-s-pleas-possible-rape-video.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-edito...
st3v3r 10y ago
He didn't buy the law, though. Gawker completely and totally did the things they were accused of. Would the world be better off if Hogan did not have the resources to fight back against what they did?
- devishard 10y ago
  No. But the world would be better off it litigation were not buyable by either Thiel or Gawker.

Teeboo 10y ago

...if your premise is true then it is a damning indictment of Gawker. Not Thiel. This issue has been covered in detail. Hogan did not have the financial resources to combat the Gawker legal machine, funded from the company coffers. It took Thiel and his larger coffers to come along and upset their apple cart. So, if a rich person did buy the legal precedent, it was only until a richer person came along and restored sanity and parity to the system.

devishard 10y ago
In this case, yes, that's how I see it. But I don't trust Thiel just because he did the right thing this time. The underlying problem is that anyone, Thiel or Gawker, can buy the law.

whatok 10y ago

Let's say the girl in this video [0] decided to sue Gawker. I'm going to just assume that she doesn't have the means to stand up to their army of lawyers. Is Gawker the rich person buying the law in this hypothetical? [0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-editor-AJ-Daulerio-refused-college-girl-s-pleas-possible-rape-video.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-edito...

st3v3r 10y ago

He didn't buy the law, though. Gawker completely and totally did the things they were accused of. Would the world be better off if Hogan did not have the resources to fight back against what they did?

devishard 10y ago
No. But the world would be better off it litigation were not buyable by either Thiel or Gawker.