3 ms·

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.

by ikeboy 9y ago

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?
  - untog 9y ago
    > Also, if they only wanted 75k in damages why didn't MJ agree to pay that and save themselves 2.5 million? Presumably because that's like waving a "free $75k available here" flag to anyone else who feels like suing them next week, and the week after that?
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    Anti-SLAPP laws have the same problem as "regulation via judiciary" -- by the time the law becomes useful, the damage is already done. If you go bankrupt defending yourself, suing under a SLAPP law doesn't help. Also, the barrier for proving you shouldn't be SLAPPed is far lower than the already low barrier for civil damages, so there's some question as to whether this even solves the problem. Our civil justice system needs to be cheaper and more accessible. It shouldn't be possible to wage economic war on a company or individual via the judiciary.
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      Attorneys can take your case pro bono and then sue for wages later with anti-SLAPP, iirc. And it's much cheaper to file the anti-SLAPP than to defend against the suit.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        Well, sure, and a billionaire can donate billions of dollars to help defend you. Or you could crowd-fund $5 million. Or... But designing a justice system around "maybe you'll find a charitable person willing to help" seems like a bad idea.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        Sounds like the Nirvana fallacy in action. Unless you have a better proposal, complaining about how some improvement isn't perfect doesn't do anything.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        > Sounds like the Nirvana fallacy in action. Unless you have a better proposal Pointing out problems with the current system is not a logical fallacy, and having a working solution in-hand is not a pre-requisite to observing the existence of problems. Also, accusing me of using the Nirvana fallacy while also accusing me of not providing an alternative policy is literally a contradiction...
        ikeboy 9y ago
        You're critiquing my proposal for a new federal law.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        I haven't claimed there's a perfect solution. I haven't even claimed there is a solution. I'm just pointing out that your proposal is not a solution.
eropple 9y ago
Mother Jones winning is the exception, not the rule, and plenty of outlets can't afford a legal fight. Those that can can-and-do (as Mother Jones did) are usually severely hampered in their ability to actually serve the people by dealing with barratrous claims.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Again, that has exactly zero relevance to both cases cited here. Why cite an exception yet no typical examples while making your case?

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.

by 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.

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?
- untog 9y ago
  > Also, if they only wanted 75k in damages why didn't MJ agree to pay that and save themselves 2.5 million? Presumably because that's like waving a "free $75k available here" flag to anyone else who feels like suing them next week, and the week after that?
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Anti-SLAPP laws have the same problem as "regulation via judiciary" -- by the time the law becomes useful, the damage is already done. If you go bankrupt defending yourself, suing under a SLAPP law doesn't help. Also, the barrier for proving you shouldn't be SLAPPed is far lower than the already low barrier for civil damages, so there's some question as to whether this even solves the problem. Our civil justice system needs to be cheaper and more accessible. It shouldn't be possible to wage economic war on a company or individual via the judiciary.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    Attorneys can take your case pro bono and then sue for wages later with anti-SLAPP, iirc. And it's much cheaper to file the anti-SLAPP than to defend against the suit.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      Well, sure, and a billionaire can donate billions of dollars to help defend you. Or you could crowd-fund $5 million. Or... But designing a justice system around "maybe you'll find a charitable person willing to help" seems like a bad idea.
      - ikeboy 9y ago
        Sounds like the Nirvana fallacy in action. Unless you have a better proposal, complaining about how some improvement isn't perfect doesn't do anything.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        > Sounds like the Nirvana fallacy in action. Unless you have a better proposal Pointing out problems with the current system is not a logical fallacy, and having a working solution in-hand is not a pre-requisite to observing the existence of problems. Also, accusing me of using the Nirvana fallacy while also accusing me of not providing an alternative policy is literally a contradiction...
        ikeboy 9y ago
        You're critiquing my proposal for a new federal law.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        I haven't claimed there's a perfect solution. I haven't even claimed there is a solution. I'm just pointing out that your proposal is not a solution.

eropple 9y ago

Mother Jones winning is the exception, not the rule, and plenty of outlets can't afford a legal fight. Those that can can-and-do (as Mother Jones did) are usually severely hampered in their ability to actually serve the people by dealing with barratrous claims.

ikeboy 9y ago
Again, that has exactly zero relevance to both cases cited here. Why cite an exception yet no typical examples while making your case?