5 ms·

Well "shutting down a garbage site for doing something bad" is quite different from "shutting down a site over frivolous complaints". You'll note that Gawker l

by ikeboy 9y ago

Well "shutting down a garbage site for doing something bad" is quite different from "shutting down a site over frivolous complaints". You'll note that Gawker lost their case, and Mother Jones won.

throwawayjava 9y ago
Yeah, but unlike Mother Jones, most political bloggers don't have millions of dollars to wage a multi-year war. The general concern is that money provides one the ability to silence other people's speech.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  I agree this is an issue, but just because some people can't afford to defend themselves doesn't make what Thiel did wrong. You'll note Gawker was fully able to fund their defense. If Thiel had did this against a smaller site that gave up without having its day in court that would be a different matter.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    untog ended their up-thread comment with a pre-emptive answer to exactly this sentiment: >> Personally, I'm concerned that the individual factors of this case (i.e. Gawker being Gawker) will overshadow the principle at stake, which feels a lot more important than a gossip site. Thiel isn't on trial in this thread, but our justice system perhaps is.
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      What principle are they defending?
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        Free speech. And, in particular, the chilling effect that's possible due to how our civil justice system is defined.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        I assume you don't mean the free speech of Thiel to fund any lawsuit he wants to?
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        No, he's one of the few people whose free speech I'm not terribly concerned about. (Don't be confused: I think he should have the right to express his opinion, I just don't think that right is in any jeopardy). I mean the free speech of anyone who doesn't have $N million needed to fend off a civil suit. If cases like this and the MJ one become common-place, there's a very real risk of chilling effect. Incidentally, I think it's probably possible to allow Thiel the ability to sue Gawker into the ground without also having a system where genuinely legal free speech is reserved for people who can afford massive financial risk. So there's absolutely no reason for you to disagree with me just because you think Thiel in on the right side of the Gawker issue...
        ikeboy 9y ago
        I think that's important as well, but both the Gawker and MJ cases are entirely irrelevant because they both were able to defend themselves.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        By the same argument, patent trolls are NBD. Except, of course, we know for a fact that lots of people are extorted into paying BS fees because they can't afford to go to court.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        If you tried to make the case that patent trolls are a big problem because they extort large fees from people, it would be appropriate to talk about cases where people settled and paid "BS fees". If you cite one case where the plaintiff won, and another where they lost in court, you aren't making that case very well because you haven't discussed any actual cases of the alleged harm.
untog 9y ago
Right, but in both cases a billionaire got to choose what qualifies as "something bad". That's the "principle" part I'm getting at here that worries me. Let's not kid ourselves - Thiel did not fund this lawsuit because he was deeply concerned about the fate of Hulk Hogan. He did it because of the coverage he'd received from Valleywag, which, let's be clear, included outing him! I'm not saying he's wrong to be aggrieved. But the idea that, if you have enough money, you can shut down whatever media organisation you want... that concerns me.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  My point is the courts decide what's bad. That's why the fact mother Jones won in court in the end is significant here.
  - untog 9y ago
    Right, but from the article: > They filed the suit in Bonneville County, Idaho, and asked for damages of up to $74,999—exactly $1 under the amount at which the lawsuit could have been removed to federal court. That ensured the case would be decided by jurors from the community where his company is the biggest employer and the sponsor of everything from the minor league ballpark to the Fourth of July fireworks. The court system is not immune to problems. > Since then, Mother Jones and our insurance company have had to spend at least $2.5 million defending ourselves. That’s money we can’t get back, since Idaho doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP statute that might open the door for recovering attorney’s fees in a case like this. VanderSloot did not need to win against Mother Jones, he just needed to bankrupt them. And he nearly did. That this particular attempt failed does not mean the principle is not a dangerous one. In many ways the court decision is secondary to the enormous costs of defending yourself legally.
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      Sounds like a good reason to have a federal anti-SLAPP law. Also, if they only wanted 75k in damages why didn't MJ agree to pay that and save themselves 2.5 million?

by ikeboy 9y ago

Well "shutting down a garbage site for doing something bad" is quite different from "shutting down a site over frivolous complaints". You'll note that Gawker lost their case, and Mother Jones won.

throwawayjava 9y ago

Yeah, but unlike Mother Jones, most political bloggers don't have millions of dollars to wage a multi-year war. The general concern is that money provides one the ability to silence other people's speech.

ikeboy 9y ago
I agree this is an issue, but just because some people can't afford to defend themselves doesn't make what Thiel did wrong. You'll note Gawker was fully able to fund their defense. If Thiel had did this against a smaller site that gave up without having its day in court that would be a different matter.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  untog ended their up-thread comment with a pre-emptive answer to exactly this sentiment: >> Personally, I'm concerned that the individual factors of this case (i.e. Gawker being Gawker) will overshadow the principle at stake, which feels a lot more important than a gossip site. Thiel isn't on trial in this thread, but our justice system perhaps is.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    What principle are they defending?
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      Free speech. And, in particular, the chilling effect that's possible due to how our civil justice system is defined.
      - ikeboy 9y ago
        I assume you don't mean the free speech of Thiel to fund any lawsuit he wants to?
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        No, he's one of the few people whose free speech I'm not terribly concerned about. (Don't be confused: I think he should have the right to express his opinion, I just don't think that right is in any jeopardy). I mean the free speech of anyone who doesn't have $N million needed to fend off a civil suit. If cases like this and the MJ one become common-place, there's a very real risk of chilling effect. Incidentally, I think it's probably possible to allow Thiel the ability to sue Gawker into the ground without also having a system where genuinely legal free speech is reserved for people who can afford massive financial risk. So there's absolutely no reason for you to disagree with me just because you think Thiel in on the right side of the Gawker issue...
        ikeboy 9y ago
        I think that's important as well, but both the Gawker and MJ cases are entirely irrelevant because they both were able to defend themselves.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        By the same argument, patent trolls are NBD. Except, of course, we know for a fact that lots of people are extorted into paying BS fees because they can't afford to go to court.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        If you tried to make the case that patent trolls are a big problem because they extort large fees from people, it would be appropriate to talk about cases where people settled and paid "BS fees". If you cite one case where the plaintiff won, and another where they lost in court, you aren't making that case very well because you haven't discussed any actual cases of the alleged harm.

untog 9y ago

Right, but in both cases a billionaire got to choose what qualifies as "something bad". That's the "principle" part I'm getting at here that worries me. Let's not kid ourselves - Thiel did not fund this lawsuit because he was deeply concerned about the fate of Hulk Hogan. He did it because of the coverage he'd received from Valleywag, which, let's be clear, included outing him! I'm not saying he's wrong to be aggrieved. But the idea that, if you have enough money, you can shut down whatever media organisation you want... that concerns me.

ikeboy 9y ago
My point is the courts decide what's bad. That's why the fact mother Jones won in court in the end is significant here.
- untog 9y ago
  Right, but from the article: > They filed the suit in Bonneville County, Idaho, and asked for damages of up to $74,999—exactly $1 under the amount at which the lawsuit could have been removed to federal court. That ensured the case would be decided by jurors from the community where his company is the biggest employer and the sponsor of everything from the minor league ballpark to the Fourth of July fireworks. The court system is not immune to problems. > Since then, Mother Jones and our insurance company have had to spend at least $2.5 million defending ourselves. That’s money we can’t get back, since Idaho doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP statute that might open the door for recovering attorney’s fees in a case like this. VanderSloot did not need to win against Mother Jones, he just needed to bankrupt them. And he nearly did. That this particular attempt failed does not mean the principle is not a dangerous one. In many ways the court decision is secondary to the enormous costs of defending yourself legally.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    Sounds like a good reason to have a federal anti-SLAPP law. Also, if they only wanted 75k in damages why didn't MJ agree to pay that and save themselves 2.5 million?