[ng12]

> The main issue of concern seemed to be about powerful individuals -- with individual agendas -- being able to wield heavy influence in other parties' legal processes.

Why is this an issue? It happens all the time in the other direction -- large corporations who hire leagues of lawyers to draw out proceedings for even the most open-and-shut cases. As quoted elsewhere in this discussion:

The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.

[danso]

When you ask, "Why is this an issue?", what do you mean by "issue"? Because by "issue", I don't mean anything more concrete than people are bothered (to various degrees). Why exactly? I can't answer for them but people often have different reactions to actions initiated by individuals vs groups.

I provided one example where Thiel being an individual has affected the Hogan v. Gawker legal proceedings. Gawker was able to convince the court that Thiel's relationship to Charles Harder, Hogan's lawyer, was worth investigating, and Thiel/Harder fought hard to block that. Is this something that happens to groups like the ACLU? Maybe, again, IANAL.