3 ms·
Just curious: aside from historical precedent, what objective "connection with the merits of the dispute" makes the ACLU more appropriate than Thiel to fund a p
by j2kun 10y ago
Just curious: aside from historical precedent, what objective "connection with the merits of the dispute" makes the ACLU more appropriate than Thiel to fund a privacy suit? Is it just that the ACLU has trained lawyers who can weigh in on the law? Would the attitude toward Thiel change if Thiel happened to have a law degree? Would it change for the ACLU if they were purely funding it and not actually providing lawyers?
- thaumasiotes 10y ago> Would it change for the ACLU if they were purely funding it and not actually providing lawyers? This is an interesting one. If the answer is "yes", then donating to the ACLU should itself be criminalized.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoThey use their donations to pay their lawyers though, right?
- viscanti 10y agoIt seems like drawing the line between connection or no-direct-connection isn't right here. It seems like helping fund people who have a legitimate case is good. It's hard to see a downside for helping people get justice. But it's not always as easy to draw the line on frivolous vs legitimate lawsuits which complicates things here.
- cmart 10y ago> Would the attitude toward Thiel change if Thiel happened to have a law degree? He does have a law degree.
- NotSammyHagar 10y agoHa, that's too funny. Of course he does.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoThe ACLU tries to promote civil liberties in general. One of those liberties is the right to a free press - "free" specifically meaning "has the right to annoy rich and powerful people." Thiel promotes Thiel. It's a clear difference in scope. IMO a culture that can't tolerate having a court jester like Gawker on the premises isn't a healthy one. Sometimes a jester can go too far, and a kick in the ass is deserved. But trying to nuke the jester from orbit is an act more common in totalitarian regimes than in those that value personal freedoms.
- j2kun 10y agoBut if Thiel says he's promoting civil liberties, that his mission is protecting privacy, how can one logically conclude, "Actually, he's just being selfish" without deviating from the merits of the issue and questioning his character? Surely ACLU lawyers (many of whom are minorities) have been wronged by the government and that contributes to their desire to help others who have had similar treatment.