4 ms·

I don't feel bad for Gawker at all. I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. He's

I don't feel bad for Gawker at all. I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. He's using that power for good in this case, but I doubt he always will.

coredog64 10y ago
He does have to buy the right litigation though. Thiel can't just sue the NYT out of existence because he gets it into his head to do so. He'd need to find a meritorious suit.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  It's surprisingly easy to find some way that the law was broken... it's quite complex.
  - adrianratnapala 10y ago
    If your concern is that the legal system is too expensive, complex and dangerous then you are right. But there is nothing specially worrying about industrialists in this picture. The lawsuit suit that sideswipes you is far more likely to come from some crusading NGOs or from government agents trying to look tough.
    - kazagistar 10y ago
      There is something particularly worrying about the industrialists: they have the most resources.
      - adrianratnapala 10y ago
        More than than, say, the average government?
  - ambicapter 10y ago
    And then pour your money into a case that has more chances than not of being thrown out? More power to you.
- devishard 10y ago
  Not really, just one that looks meritorious enough to a jury of average people.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
So, do you also disagree when the ACLU backs a lawsuit? Or, say, when the EFF does?
- CaptainZapp 10y ago
  Usually they don't do that anonymously.
  - tvanantwerp 10y ago
    As someone who has worked at 501(c)3 orgs that have launched public interest lawsuits, they are very likely receiving money to pay for those cases. And probably the majority of funding for a case comes from just one source--a source you likely don't know is funding it. Just because you see the ACLU or EFF doesn't mean you see where the money is ultimately coming from.
jamesrcole 10y ago
> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. What's wrong with backing some reasonable legal action? Surely you're not against that? I suspect the actual issue people have, which doesn't have anything to do with Thiel, is that a lot of people don't have the money to effectively back reasonable legal actions.
travisp 10y ago
> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. What about when rich people fund the ACLU or EFF in order to support a lawsuit by those organizations?
basseq 10y ago
> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. Welcome to the legal system. Money allows you to mount lawsuit (frivolous or not) and mount effective defenses against them. The problem is when there's an imbalance: when a tech giant sues a small start-up (e.g., Zynga suing over the "Saga" trademark) or when an individual elects not to sue a large organization because the costs are too high. Thiel (and Newegg re: patent trolls, and EFF, and ALCU, and others) are evening that money balance so justice can actually be served. Can they use this power for evil instead? Of course: and it happens every day already. That's the point. The anti-Thiel arguments come down to: "Even though Gawker was proven guilty in a court of law, it's not fair because Hogan never should have been able to mount the lawsuit in the first place." In other words, Gawker should have won because Hogan has less money. All Thiel did is even the playing field. If this was about freedom of the press, they would have won the lawsuit. They didn't. End of story.
- basseq 10y ago
  Follow up: the other argument here is that the damages awarded from the Hogan verdict shouldn't bankrupt Gawker. And that's a fair point: if total corporate annihilation is a possible outcome from publishing a story, then would the press be more leery of posting important, controversial news. Thus impacting the value of a free press. Again, valid argument (though this case is a bad example). But your quibble is with the legal system, not with Hogan or Thiel. You will also need to weigh fairness in tying damages to "ability to pay", as well as "news-worthiness" (e.g., not a sex tape).
  - devishard 10y ago
    In a larger context, I think corporate annihilation is something corporations should live in constant fear of.
- devishard 10y ago
  I agree that in this case Thiel evened the playing field, but the fundamental problem still remains. It's still highly problematic that either Thiel or Gawker can buy the law.

coredog64 10y ago

He does have to buy the right litigation though. Thiel can't just sue the NYT out of existence because he gets it into his head to do so. He'd need to find a meritorious suit.

kazagistar 10y ago
It's surprisingly easy to find some way that the law was broken... it's quite complex.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  If your concern is that the legal system is too expensive, complex and dangerous then you are right. But there is nothing specially worrying about industrialists in this picture. The lawsuit suit that sideswipes you is far more likely to come from some crusading NGOs or from government agents trying to look tough.
  - kazagistar 10y ago
    There is something particularly worrying about the industrialists: they have the most resources.
    - adrianratnapala 10y ago
      More than than, say, the average government?
- ambicapter 10y ago
  And then pour your money into a case that has more chances than not of being thrown out? More power to you.
devishard 10y ago
Not really, just one that looks meritorious enough to a jury of average people.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

So, do you also disagree when the ACLU backs a lawsuit? Or, say, when the EFF does?

CaptainZapp 10y ago
Usually they don't do that anonymously.
- tvanantwerp 10y ago
  As someone who has worked at 501(c)3 orgs that have launched public interest lawsuits, they are very likely receiving money to pay for those cases. And probably the majority of funding for a case comes from just one source--a source you likely don't know is funding it. Just because you see the ACLU or EFF doesn't mean you see where the money is ultimately coming from.

jamesrcole 10y ago

> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. What's wrong with backing some reasonable legal action? Surely you're not against that? I suspect the actual issue people have, which doesn't have anything to do with Thiel, is that a lot of people don't have the money to effectively back reasonable legal actions.

travisp 10y ago

> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. What about when rich people fund the ACLU or EFF in order to support a lawsuit by those organizations?

basseq 10y ago

> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. Welcome to the legal system. Money allows you to mount lawsuit (frivolous or not) and mount effective defenses against them. The problem is when there's an imbalance: when a tech giant sues a small start-up (e.g., Zynga suing over the "Saga" trademark) or when an individual elects not to sue a large organization because the costs are too high. Thiel (and Newegg re: patent trolls, and EFF, and ALCU, and others) are evening that money balance so justice can actually be served. Can they use this power for evil instead? Of course: and it happens every day already. That's the point. The anti-Thiel arguments come down to: "Even though Gawker was proven guilty in a court of law, it's not fair because Hogan never should have been able to mount the lawsuit in the first place." In other words, Gawker should have won because Hogan has less money. All Thiel did is even the playing field. If this was about freedom of the press, they would have won the lawsuit. They didn't. End of story.

basseq 10y ago
Follow up: the other argument here is that the damages awarded from the Hogan verdict shouldn't bankrupt Gawker. And that's a fair point: if total corporate annihilation is a possible outcome from publishing a story, then would the press be more leery of posting important, controversial news. Thus impacting the value of a free press. Again, valid argument (though this case is a bad example). But your quibble is with the legal system, not with Hogan or Thiel. You will also need to weigh fairness in tying damages to "ability to pay", as well as "news-worthiness" (e.g., not a sex tape).
- devishard 10y ago
  In a larger context, I think corporate annihilation is something corporations should live in constant fear of.
devishard 10y ago
I agree that in this case Thiel evened the playing field, but the fundamental problem still remains. It's still highly problematic that either Thiel or Gawker can buy the law.