4 ms·

My first exposure to Thiel was from his revenge campaign to destroy Gawker.[a] Two lessons became cemented in unbreakable stone for me. 1) Enough money will e

My first exposure to Thiel was from his revenge campaign to destroy Gawker.[a] Two lessons became cemented in unbreakable stone for me. 1) Enough money will eventually bend any justice system to your will.[b] 2) Threats to news orgs' existence will bloom after press gives a pass to the previous threats.[c] [a] https://www.techdirt.com/2016/06/13/peter-thiels-plan-to-destroy-gawker-went-way-beyond-hogans-case/ https://www.techdirt.com/2016/06/13/peter-thiels-plan-to-des... [b] https://www.techdirt.com/2016/08/16/billionaire-backer-palantir-facebook-insists-hes-bankrupting-journalists-to-protect-your-privacy/ https://www.techdirt.com/2016/08/16/billionaire-backer-palan... [c] https://www.cjr.org/first_person/amazon-roy-price.php https://www.cjr.org/first_person/amazon-roy-price.php

FireBeyond 3y ago
His revenge campaign against Gawker was frankly, a travesty against justice, if you ask me (see my other comments on this thread).
A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
> Enough money will eventually bend any justice system to your will.[b] Not "any." The US legal (don't call it justice) system happens to be extremely corruptible, in a sort of "de facto" sense, because securing representation in court is extremely expensive, and everything secondary to representation -- depositions, expert witnesses, investigations, etc. -- is also extremely expensive. In the end, virtually all civil cases become wars of financial attrition. But it's possible to imagine different systems that avoid this sorry outcome. It's as simple as making trial lawyers, still called "officers of the court," actual employees of the court. Assign them at random to litigants or defendants, just as judges are assigned. What one litigant gets (e.g. should one side request depositions or expert witnesses) the other also gets on an equal basis. You could pay 'em out of taxpayer dollars, and it would hardly register a blip in civic/state/federal budgets. We'd all benefit from a more even playing field before the law. But it'll never happen, because legislators are virtually all lawyers, and they rather like the old status quo, which works very well at enriching lawyers.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  I'd be willing to amend my assertion to just US justice systems.

FireBeyond 3y ago

His revenge campaign against Gawker was frankly, a travesty against justice, if you ask me (see my other comments on this thread).

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago

> Enough money will eventually bend any justice system to your will.[b] Not "any." The US legal (don't call it justice) system happens to be extremely corruptible, in a sort of "de facto" sense, because securing representation in court is extremely expensive, and everything secondary to representation -- depositions, expert witnesses, investigations, etc. -- is also extremely expensive. In the end, virtually all civil cases become wars of financial attrition. But it's possible to imagine different systems that avoid this sorry outcome. It's as simple as making trial lawyers, still called "officers of the court," actual employees of the court. Assign them at random to litigants or defendants, just as judges are assigned. What one litigant gets (e.g. should one side request depositions or expert witnesses) the other also gets on an equal basis. You could pay 'em out of taxpayer dollars, and it would hardly register a blip in civic/state/federal budgets. We'd all benefit from a more even playing field before the law. But it'll never happen, because legislators are virtually all lawyers, and they rather like the old status quo, which works very well at enriching lawyers.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
I'd be willing to amend my assertion to just US justice systems.