3 ms·

I believe the precedent the GP was referring to, to which the parent was replying—and to whom I replied—is a billionaire using the legal system and a case to wh

I believe the precedent the GP was referring to, to which the parent was replying—and to whom I replied—is a billionaire using the legal system and a case to which he's not a party to seek revenge by bankrolling that case. I see no one disputing the legitimacy of suing Gawker or defending Gawker's disgusting and illegal behavior.

jdmichal 10y ago
You realize that this is the same mechanism used by groups like the EFF, ACLU, and NAACP to bring cases? And what about a lawyer agreeing to take a case on contingency; isn't that technically the lawyer funding the case, and not the plaintiff? Also, what is the alternative here? Sure, Hogan maybe has enough money that he could have funded the case. Could Joe Smith working his 9-to-5 have funded that case? If not, how is he supposed to get justice, if this exact situation happens to him? Money is already a problem in court, isn't restricting the funding sources of the common person therefore a negative outcome? Finally, this was discussed the last time this case came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878742
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you've decided to argue with me. You seem to have erroneously concluded I have some issue here for you to fix. The GP is the person who had questions. I merely replied to someone who made a fairly combative and unnecessarily political reply to point out the GP's concerns were in no way addressed—such is the way of political rants.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    Sorry; I assumed that by replying to you and you replying to me that we were entering into a conversation. I am attempting to address your interpretation of the concerns raised by GP. Replying to your interpretation of the concerns seems like a natural place to do that. As it is, your reply here was not really necessary.

jdmichal 10y ago

You realize that this is the same mechanism used by groups like the EFF, ACLU, and NAACP to bring cases? And what about a lawyer agreeing to take a case on contingency; isn't that technically the lawyer funding the case, and not the plaintiff? Also, what is the alternative here? Sure, Hogan maybe has enough money that he could have funded the case. Could Joe Smith working his 9-to-5 have funded that case? If not, how is he supposed to get justice, if this exact situation happens to him? Money is already a problem in court, isn't restricting the funding sources of the common person therefore a negative outcome? Finally, this was discussed the last time this case came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11878742

bobwaycott 10y ago
I'm not sure why you've decided to argue with me. You seem to have erroneously concluded I have some issue here for you to fix. The GP is the person who had questions. I merely replied to someone who made a fairly combative and unnecessarily political reply to point out the GP's concerns were in no way addressed—such is the way of political rants.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  Sorry; I assumed that by replying to you and you replying to me that we were entering into a conversation. I am attempting to address your interpretation of the concerns raised by GP. Replying to your interpretation of the concerns seems like a natural place to do that. As it is, your reply here was not really necessary.