4 ms·

A billionaire used his money and influence to destroy an organization because he doesn't agree with what they say. I can think of at least one thing of value th

• adamnemecek 10y ago
  > he doesn't agree with what they say That wording seems a bit too kind to Gawker.
• tmalsburg2 10y ago
  The real issue is that money shouldn't play as much a role in court as it does. Many other problems discussed here like billionaires buying influence are really just corollaries to that.
• lmm 10y ago
  Money and influence would have got him nowhere if Gawker had stayed within the law and/or common decency.
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    Law suits occasionally come to incorrect results (the appellate process exists to mitigate this risk, and the higher burden of proof in certain cases, notably criminal cases, exists to direct which side those errors tend to fall on), punishing people who are within the bounds of law and common decency. Therefore, a deep pockets agent funding every potential lawsuit from other parties they can find (or stimulate), increasing the number of such suits and the likelihood that they will go to trial, can, simply by taking enough swings, eventually impose a combination of legal costs and judgements that will financially destroy the target; actual unlawful behavior may reduce the time it takes for this strategy to succeed, but isn't necessary for it to work. So, given Theil's demonstrated proclivities in the multiple lawsuits he was funding against Gawker, I don't think the statement that Gawker would have been okay if they had stayed within the law is warranted.