[loteck]

We can't let distaste for Gawker in particular blind us to the underlying narrative here. I think Popehat[1] summed up the deeply concerning issues this Gawker mess has brought to the fore:

For most of us the scary part of the story is that our legal system is generally receptive to people abusing it to suppress speech. Money helps do that, but it's not necessary to do it. A hand-to-mouth lunatic with a dishonest contingency lawyer can ruin you and suppress your speech nearly as easily as a billionaire. Will you prevail against a malicious and frivolous defamation suit? Perhaps sooner if you're lucky enough to be in a state with a good anti-SLAPP statute.

[1] https://popehat.com/2016/08/18/gawker-money-speech-and-justi...

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Since when is a legitimately selected jury, with no external influences, finding Gawker guilty "abusive suppression of speech" or "malicious and frivolous"? Bollea likely would have won the case easily even if he hadn't received outside funding; the violation was just that egregious.

I have a hard time taking seriously the "underlying narrative" various self-interested news sources are trying to weave.

[zorpner]

Bollea's lawyer (paid for by Thiel, and who should be disbarred for his clear violation of basic legal ethical standards) made multiple trial decisions that punished Gawker at Bollea's expense.

Besides, the specific case is a red herring -- Thiel simply got very lucky that one of the many lawsuits he was secretly funding against Gawker was so cut-and-dry. Had he not gotten that dropped in his lap, he would have continued funding other secret nuisance lawsuits until he was able to find something else with a substantial judgement (and then would have done what he did in this case -- announce that it was him in order to produce a chilling effect on other news organizations reporting negatively about his investments). You can't be simultaneously in favor of the legality of what Thiel did and against this: http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander...

[GrumpyYoungMan]

>that punished Gawker at Bollea's expense

That's for Bollea himself to decide, not us. Frankly, I see no evidence presented that he had any objection to the choices his attorney made.

> You can't be simultaneously in favor of the legality of what Thiel did and against this: http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander...

[edited]

I can and rather easily, at that. Why? Because I can distinguish between cases that clearly have merit and cases that clearly don't.

This "underlying narrative" people are trying to build, as I said, is just an outright non-starter.

[zorpner]

Thiel's intent was to bankrupt Gawker by secretly funding many cases such as the Mother Jones example. Again, he got lucky with the Bollea case (not only in that it was quite egregious, but that it provided an excellent framework to recruit unwitting members of the public to his defense by exploiting our cognitive tendency to break conflict into false dichotomies -- being anti-Gawker doesn't mean I'm pro-Thiel).

Are you in favor of or against someone secretly funding multiple lawsuits in order to destroy a company producing negative press about their investment vehicles? That's the question that actually matters.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

>Are you in favor of or against someone secretly funding multiple lawsuits in order to destroy a company producing negative press about their investment vehicles?

Do the lawsuits have merit or not? If they do, the source of funding or motivation or secrecy is clearly irrelevant.

[zorpner]

Is your assertion that lawsuits are decided fairly regardless of the amount of money each side is able to invest?

the source of funding or motivation or secrecy is clearly irrelevant

You should read about the history of champerty and maintenance in common law.

[loteck]

Whether a lawsuit has merit or not is a big part of this issue. A lawsuit can be brought against you with or without merit. Getting to the point where a determination can be made on that question can be very, very expensive for you. Can you afford it? If not, your opponent may be able to ruin you regardless.