3 ms·

The problem is more the reverse scenario. EG: A more legitimate media outlet runs some investigative reporting that exposes legitimate wrongdoing of company ru

The problem is more the reverse scenario. EG: A more legitimate media outlet runs some investigative reporting that exposes legitimate wrongdoing of company run by billionaire. Billionaire responds by funding tons of frivolous lawsuits in attempt to bankrupt / silence the media outlet. The way the justice system in too many countries works these days, it's possible that if the outlet doesn't have deep pockets, they're in trouble. This scenario is not out of the question. One past example that comes to mind immediately is Silvio Berlusconi, who was really fond of the libel lawsuit to quell any little bit of criticism. Now, I personally have no problems with the Gawker outcome, but I can also see the reason for concern behind Thiel's methodologies.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Thiel didn't fund tons of frivolous lawsuits (nor did the SPLC). Thiel and SPLC both funded solid lawsuits where the verdict - not litigation costs - is what bankrupts the other party. (A lawsuit is by definition not frivolous if you win.)
- 627467 10y ago
  "Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others"[1]. I don't know how much it's tons, but certainly not only one, and so far seems like the only non-frivolous by that definition. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Do you have evidence that the others are frivolous? Suppose SPLC filed other lawsuits (besides the winning one) against Aryan Nations, not all of which were successful. Would you be similarly concerned?
- soundwave106 10y ago
  I agree. I guess the question is just how much Thiel's money actually affected the outcome. Money="justice" is a problem, I think you'll agree. This is the red flag that I think many people are raising, not because of this particular case, but because of the potential of abuse of justice that such a scenario would allow. On the other hand, the outcome of this case could've been exactly the same even without Thiel's money. So maybe people are being too overly concerned about this angle.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Thiel didn't fund tons of frivolous lawsuits (nor did the SPLC). Thiel and SPLC both funded solid lawsuits where the verdict - not litigation costs - is what bankrupts the other party. (A lawsuit is by definition not frivolous if you win.)

627467 10y ago
"Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others"[1]. I don't know how much it's tons, but certainly not only one, and so far seems like the only non-frivolous by that definition. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Do you have evidence that the others are frivolous? Suppose SPLC filed other lawsuits (besides the winning one) against Aryan Nations, not all of which were successful. Would you be similarly concerned?
soundwave106 10y ago
I agree. I guess the question is just how much Thiel's money actually affected the outcome. Money="justice" is a problem, I think you'll agree. This is the red flag that I think many people are raising, not because of this particular case, but because of the potential of abuse of justice that such a scenario would allow. On the other hand, the outcome of this case could've been exactly the same even without Thiel's money. So maybe people are being too overly concerned about this angle.