3 ms·

> That's a template for private censorship by the rich. No. Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong.

by maratd 10y ago

> That's a template for private censorship by the rich. No. Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong. The courts frown on attempts to do that. For you to do something wrong, you had to cause clearly defined harm. If you're causing harm, why shouldn't you be sued out of existence? The injustice here isn't that the rich can eliminate bad actors ... it's that the rest of us can't!

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
CPLX 10y ago
> Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong. That's absolutely incorrect. There is ample precedent of people using the civil legal system to suppress the media. Perhaps you heard of these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law
- maratd 10y ago
  I was explicitly talking at the US legal system, so the proper link is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_the_USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_t... Read that over. They did not have a lot of things go their way.
  - CPLX 10y ago
    Perhaps. As far as I can tell though they successfully kept the news that they were running a financially fraudulent cult completely out of the mainstream media for decades, until the invention of the internet made that goal increasingly impossible.
klagermkii 10y ago
You underestimate the power of being able to turn the Eye of Justice selectively upon individuals or groups of enemies. It's one of the reasons people get so upset with racial or class-based profiling. We may all agree that enforcing speeding laws is a good thing, and someone who gets a ticket for it deserves the fine. But if I could fund the police department to have a car permanently follow just you around and nail you for each transgression, it turns something that is fair for each individual offense into something unfair in aggregate. Even if by doing so I was making the roads safer, and you technically deserved each fine. I think Peter Thiel is doing something similar and even though Gawker is in the wrong in the individual case and deserves to lose, I strongly dislike being able to keep paying to throw the justice system against your enemies.
- maratd 10y ago
  In your example, you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government. You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity. There has always been yellow journalism. Gawker isn't new. What is new is that this is the first time an establishment like that got a bloody nose. Usually they're the ones using the legal system to silence those they abuse.
  - klagermkii 10y ago
    > you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government I don't think if it's government or individual it changes the inherent unfairness of having someone decide to watch you, and just you, for any sign of a slip up and then getting you punished based on it. Heck, I think most siblings understand this kind of unfairness with uneven parental justice. > You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity. There's an order of magnitude difference between the net worth of Thiel and Gawker as a whole. And that's on a good day for Gawker.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      There's usually an order of magnitude difference between them and their victims. This time it went the other way.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  >I strongly dislike being able to keep paying to throw the justice system against your enemies. Why? This is simply how the world works. It doesn't have to be the justice system.

by maratd 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

CPLX 10y ago

> Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong. That's absolutely incorrect. There is ample precedent of people using the civil legal system to suppress the media. Perhaps you heard of these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law

maratd 10y ago
I was explicitly talking at the US legal system, so the proper link is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_the_USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_t... Read that over. They did not have a lot of things go their way.
- CPLX 10y ago
  Perhaps. As far as I can tell though they successfully kept the news that they were running a financially fraudulent cult completely out of the mainstream media for decades, until the invention of the internet made that goal increasingly impossible.

klagermkii 10y ago

You underestimate the power of being able to turn the Eye of Justice selectively upon individuals or groups of enemies. It's one of the reasons people get so upset with racial or class-based profiling. We may all agree that enforcing speeding laws is a good thing, and someone who gets a ticket for it deserves the fine. But if I could fund the police department to have a car permanently follow just you around and nail you for each transgression, it turns something that is fair for each individual offense into something unfair in aggregate. Even if by doing so I was making the roads safer, and you technically deserved each fine. I think Peter Thiel is doing something similar and even though Gawker is in the wrong in the individual case and deserves to lose, I strongly dislike being able to keep paying to throw the justice system against your enemies.

maratd 10y ago
In your example, you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government. You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity. There has always been yellow journalism. Gawker isn't new. What is new is that this is the first time an establishment like that got a bloody nose. Usually they're the ones using the legal system to silence those they abuse.
- klagermkii 10y ago
  > you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government I don't think if it's government or individual it changes the inherent unfairness of having someone decide to watch you, and just you, for any sign of a slip up and then getting you punished based on it. Heck, I think most siblings understand this kind of unfairness with uneven parental justice. > You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity. There's an order of magnitude difference between the net worth of Thiel and Gawker as a whole. And that's on a good day for Gawker.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    There's usually an order of magnitude difference between them and their victims. This time it went the other way.
ryanlol 10y ago
>I strongly dislike being able to keep paying to throw the justice system against your enemies. Why? This is simply how the world works. It doesn't have to be the justice system.