I haven't made up my mind on who is right, if there is even a right side to this situation. But I am wondering one thing:
For those who believe that Thiel's financial backing is unethical because it makes it unfair, how so? Doesn't that line of logic presume that the court system is completely ruled by money? Is that how the legal system works in America? Money wins?
edit: Not sure why I got downvoted. I'm trying to be sincere and express my disbelief. I really want to hear a well thought out answer cause I really want to understand the situation and why people just keep repeating that Thiel is being unethical.
I haven't made up my mind on who is right, if there is even a right side to this situation. But I am wondering one thing: For those who believe that Thiel's financial backing is unethical because it makes it unfair, how so? Doesn't that line of logic presume that the court system is completely ruled by money? Is that how the legal system works in America? Money wins? edit: Not sure why I got downvoted. I'm trying to…
> Is that how the legal system works in America? Money wins?
What is the alternative? If you can't afford to sue a company rightfully you don't get to? What is wrong with paying someone's legal fees, regardless of your motives? Are you going to make transfers of money illegal? He could've lost the case in the court of law and lost his money.
Perhaps not phrased well enough in my post, but as I said, my personal take is that - so long as the quality of access to justice can't be fully separated from wealth - third-party funding of lawsuits should be allowed, just not in secret. For an immediate fix: have parties disclose any third-parties funding their suits and any conflicts of interests they might have with the opposing side. Make the judge and jury awa…
That doesn't really make any sense, it would be more reasonable to say third-parties funding suits must disclose if they DO NOT have a conflict of interest. What, exactly, is the reportable harm in being bankrolled by a third party anyways? By definition the plaintiff already has a conflict of interest with the defendant, adding on another conflict with the defendant isn't going to change things. A case will be decided by two things: 1. The merit of the complaint, and 2. The availability of money to pursue the complaint (in no particular order). Either way, it's not up to defendant to decide whether or not the plaintiff is receiving poor legal advice due to a third party, it's up to that plaintiff. So what reasonable outcome would disclosures have, other than potentially taint a jury due to matters not of law or fact? If Satan himself had bankrolled Gawker for a case in which they were, by clear evidence of fact, innocent would that funding have any bearing?
>He added: “It’s not for me to decide what happens to Gawker. If America rallies around Gawker and decides we want more people to be outed and more sex tapes to be posted without consent, then they will find a way to save Gawker, and I can’t stop it.” An important reminder of exactly what conduct, on Gawker's part, people are defending. They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose. They're scum…
Isn't this the same argument that gets thrown around when people point out the long term precedent implications in having Apple write a backdoor for the FBI? "You are defending a murdering terrorist!" "No, I am standing for the security of our communications infrastructure and, by extension, our society" Now: "You are defending a criminal low-brow rag that cares nothing for violating someone's privacy in the name of…
> regardless of merit
But in this case, it seems the lawsuits have merit?
I absolutely despise Gawker. The stories they run and the stuff they do would normally mean that I would love for them to be run into the ground. At the same time, they are the only independent online media outlet left in the world. Every other company that once prided itself on being "independent" from the large media network owned by ancient billionaires has now received at least hundreds of millions of dollars in…
Not sure how you define "independent", but media will always be somewhat beholden to their benefactors (which today is advertisers). Gawker is not above this, see this story which impacted ad money (but was also extremely slimy). Interesting they have principles on a story topic if it hurts the $...
This is a poorly thought out argument. He isn't doing anything under-handed or illegal to destroy Gawker. He isn't fabricating evidence against them or paying off cops. He's simply financing a non-spurious lawsuit, which the courts have decided was legitimate. This is exactly what I want the billionaires in our society doing. He may be acting in his own self-interest, but it also happened to align with the public int…
I don't know enough about the case at hand to comment specifically, but arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the general case. Keep in mind that selectively punishing common legal violations is a common censorship tactic in many places. Consider this case in Mexico: "On 12 March 2015, two journalists from MVS, D…
> On 12 March 2015, two journalists from MVS, Daniel Lizárraga and Irving Huerta, were fired after they used the station's brand name without permission in a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption
They were fired. What does that have to do with legal cases?
Isn't this the same argument that gets thrown around when people point out the long term precedent implications in having Apple write a backdoor for the FBI? "You are defending a murdering terrorist!" "No, I am standing for the security of our communications infrastructure and, by extension, our society" Now: "You are defending a criminal low-brow rag that cares nothing for violating someone's privacy in the name of…
We can defend the press' freedom to express any opinion or fact without allowing them to publish people's private sex tapes.
Yes, and furthermore it is up to Gawker to decide how to structure themselves. If they break the law under the same entity they do legitimate journalism, they are taking the risk.
I absolutely despise Gawker. The stories they run and the stuff they do would normally mean that I would love for them to be run into the ground. At the same time, they are the only independent online media outlet left in the world. Every other company that once prided itself on being "independent" from the large media network owned by ancient billionaires has now received at least hundreds of millions of dollars in…
The lack of good, independant media outlets is a problem, but this is not a good solution. I do not agree that the value of Gawker outweighs the value in punishing its behaviour - it's not the fault of Gawkers victims that there are so few independant media, and it should have been Gawker that took more care in preserving itself.