[moultano]

Yes. My point is to make a distinction between using the high cost of the legal system for leverage and relying on the court system to actually dispense justice. Often people are bullied into a settlement because legal cases cost money, and the other side has more money, but that isn't happening here.

If the courts rule against you, and we believe the courts are just, then it shouldn't matter how the process was financed, or whose interests were involved.

[zardgiv]

Considering this is the only one of the lawsuits he's funded that he's revealed, it's unclear that all of them have merit. On top of that, they forum shopped this specific case and dropped claims that would have allowed Gawker's insurance to cover damages.

Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP.

Your argument is poorly thought out.

[moultano]

My understanding is that this judgement alone is sufficient to cause Gawker's financial problems, and that there aren't others that are material. Correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here.

>Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP.

I think it's worth differentiating cases with merit from cases where there has actually been a clear judgement against the defendant. I have a hard time calling the second class unethical, regardless of the motivation.

[zardgiv]

What do you mean "there aren't others that are material?" Thiel himself has said that he's funding other suits against Gawker. The impending threat of a billionaire with a personal vendetta is a significant part of their financial problems.

Had Gawker won the case in federal court, as it was expected to and likely would have, or if they win on appeal, suddenly Thiel's actions become unethical? This hardly sounds like a well-thought out ethical system, but it seems like people only care about a free press or free speech depending on whose ox is getting gored.

[moultano]

I trust the courts mostly (especially in well trod areas of law), so I assume that if they find for one party and reward large damages that the suit was legitimate. Before the ruling, or if the ruling was reversed, I don't know whether the suit is legitimate or not. The ruling doesn't change its ethical status, it changes my knowledge of its ethical status.

[zardgiv]

You completely ignored the first part of my comment.

It's convenient, too, that a ruling against the people you disagree with is considered just, but you'll withhold judgment if it's overturned.

[moultano]

I don't think I've given any indication of who I disagree with.