541–550 of 566 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If justice is blind, why should funding matter? That's a big if, that is verifiably false.
In that case, third-party funding seems like the last aspect of the problem that needs to be fixed.
E.g. why have lawyers of higher skills available based on their asking fees? That's like openly acknowledging that people with more money get better leverage on the law and have better representation.
If it was to me, I'd take that aspect out of the legal system. We might value such competition in business, but I sure as hell don't want it there -- it's what ensures millionaires get out with a slap on the wrist for dire offenses and poor people and minorities end up with disproportionate sentences.
Of course this would never fly (too much money to be lost), but e.g. making lawyer assignment random for everybody, or having the state demand a total specific cap on what they can charge that's the same for everybody.
In other words: stop allowing legal representation to be a market where more money buy you better services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious: aside from historical precedent, what objective "connection with the merits of the dispute" makes the ACLU more appropriate than Thiel to fund a privacy suit? Is it just that the ACLU has trained lawyers who can weigh in on the law? Would the attitude toward Thiel change if Thiel happened to have a law degree? Would it change for the ACLU if they were purely funding it and not actually providing lawyers…
> Would it change for the ACLU if they were purely funding it and not actually providing lawyers? This is an interesting one. If the answer is "yes", then donating to the ACLU should itself be criminalized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Thiel arguably has "connection with the merits of the dispute". He feels that Gawker violated his privacy as well as Hogan's, and he wants Gawker to be punished and/or discouraged from further similar behavior. Just like the EFF or ACLU.
Or if he doesn't do it personally, he can certainly create the Privacy Protection League in order to fight for privacy rights. And guess what the first case the new PPL might take on. I'm not sure how you distinguish that from a legitimate organization like the EFF or ACLU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just implement Loser Pays.
Still wouldn't work. The loser wouldn't pay until the case is closed, and the company could go bankrupt in the meantime. Case in point, Gawker is widely expected to have their damages reduced on appeal, but it's already too late.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just implement Loser Pays.
How would you cap it? Could someone just spend ridiculous amounts of money to win a simple lawsuit and bankrupt the other party like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. (But I do think the right to tasteless speech is important and worth defending)
Ah, my question is ambiguous between "showing the Mohammed cartoons would be in bad taste" and "showing the Mohammed cartoons can't be allowed because it would be in bad taste". So let me make some points myself: 1. Publishing the cartoons themselves makes a variety of statements that can't be made by reporting on their existence without showing them. 2. Those statements have great value, independent of any questions…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you cap it? Could someone just spend ridiculous amounts of money to win a simple lawsuit and bankrupt the other party like that?
Nothing is capped. Because of the potential for paying twice as much to sue someone, only cases where the plaintiff has a good chance of winning make it to court, thereby putting less demand on legal services. Gawker was not bankrupted by their own legal fees, but by the damages they were ordered to pay out of their own pockets, so nothing is justifying a cap on what the loser must pay in terms of legal fees here. Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious: aside from historical precedent, what objective "connection with the merits of the dispute" makes the ACLU more appropriate than Thiel to fund a privacy suit? Is it just that the ACLU has trained lawyers who can weigh in on the law? Would the attitude toward Thiel change if Thiel happened to have a law degree? Would it change for the ACLU if they were purely funding it and not actually providing lawyers…
The ACLU tries to promote civil liberties in general. One of those liberties is the right to a free press - "free" specifically meaning "has the right to annoy rich and powerful people." Thiel promotes Thiel. It's a clear difference in scope. IMO a culture that can't tolerate having a court jester like Gawker on the premises isn't a healthy one. Sometimes a jester can go too far, and a kick in the ass is deserved. Bu…
Surely ACLU lawyers (many of whom are minorities) have been wronged by the government and that contributes to their desire to help others who have had similar treatment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to say the same thing, but I think this is the key phrase: | litigation where the funder has otherwise has no connection with the merits of the dispute. I think those organizations and other social policy groups can demonstrate that they have a vested interest in the merits of the dispute. In fact that litmus test may be overbroad, allowing any corporation for whom the case is useful to their business str…
Except Thiel arguably has "connection with the merits of the dispute". He feels that Gawker violated his privacy as well as Hogan's, and he wants Gawker to be punished and/or discouraged from further similar behavior. Just like the EFF or ACLU.