| > but I don't see the harm of "maintenance" It is right in front of your nose. Whatever your views of Gawker, Thiel destroyed a news company out of spite. That seems like maybe a little bit of a problem. > It's not about what's right, its about what's allowed. People with a lot of money have a big advantage in that regard. If we try to change that, we'll have to redo a lot of the legal system. Or, you know, revert to making maintenance/champerty illegal, which appeared to work for the intended purpose[1] for rather longer than the US has existed. > The key rule that Gawker broke here was "Don't make powerful enemies" In a thread discussing what can be done about the rich hijacking the justice system to destroy a news company out of spite, you (apparently normatively) (1) don't see the harm and then (2) essentially declare "Don't talk back to your betters". Please correctly where I'm wrong, but it sounds like you don't see any problem at all with the rich buying vengeance through the courts. [1] Yes, money will always have an advantage. That doesn't mean throw your hands in the air and walk away. |
It seems like you're discussing a situation other than this case, but I can't figure out what it is. The court ruled that Gawker unlawfully invaded someone's privacy. They are clearly in the wrong no matter how you look at it. This isn't a case of rich people abusing the court system or using money to gain an unfair advantage. This is justice being done in the service of revenge, which is the usual way in which justice gets done.
I'm going to stick by the idea that people can use their money however they want within the boundaries of the law. The idea of not making powerful enemies is sound because there are countless ways that someone can use resources to make life difficult for someone else. It would be impossible to outlaw all of them, and you wouldn't want that even if it could be done.
I'd still love to hear how Thiel using his money to bring about a just outcome does harm to the integrity of the legal system.