[smt88]

My first issue is the "who can afford it" part. People shouldn't get more justice when they're wealthier and less when they're poorer.

My second issue is that more money gives a plaintiff access to legal tricks that can overwhelm an opponent with less money. One example is to bury the opponent with discovery.

My final problem is that Thiel is not using the justice system to get justice for himself. He's sticking his nose into another person's complaint. That isn't how our courts were intended to work.

[sputnikus]

It's still no different from charities and nonprofits, they don't get justice for themselfs either. Thiel saw, that Hogan has a strong case and he's willing to fight for it (but doesn't have enough money to do so). [1] "One example is to bury the opponent with discovery." You think Gawker is so poor it can't afford first class lawyers? Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[1] http://observer.com/2016/05/peter-thiels-reminder-to-the-gaw...

[argonaut]

Let's not ignore that Gawker had top lawyers too. Remember, it's really the $140 million verdict that's going to kill Gawker. Not the legal fees which I'm sure are well under $10 million (and Hogan - maybe Thiel? - would be on the hook for if he lost)

[tsmffh]

Seems like your problem is with the legal system, not Thiel. Which is completely fair. "Don't hate the player, hate the game."