Well "shutting down a garbage site for doing something bad" is quite different from "shutting down a site over frivolous complaints".
You'll note that Gawker lost their case, and Mother Jones won.
You'll note that Gawker lost their case, and Mother Jones won.
Let's not kid ourselves - Thiel did not fund this lawsuit because he was deeply concerned about the fate of Hulk Hogan. He did it because of the coverage he'd received from Valleywag, which, let's be clear, included outing him! I'm not saying he's wrong to be aggrieved. But the idea that, if you have enough money, you can shut down whatever media organisation you want... that concerns me.
> They filed the suit in Bonneville County, Idaho, and asked for damages of up to $74,999—exactly $1 under the amount at which the lawsuit could have been removed to federal court. That ensured the case would be decided by jurors from the community where his company is the biggest employer and the sponsor of everything from the minor league ballpark to the Fourth of July fireworks.
The court system is not immune to problems.
> Since then, Mother Jones and our insurance company have had to spend at least $2.5 million defending ourselves. That’s money we can’t get back, since Idaho doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP statute that might open the door for recovering attorney’s fees in a case like this.
VanderSloot did not need to win against Mother Jones, he just needed to bankrupt them. And he nearly did. That this particular attempt failed does not mean the principle is not a dangerous one. In many ways the court decision is secondary to the enormous costs of defending yourself legally.
Also, if they only wanted 75k in damages why didn't MJ agree to pay that and save themselves 2.5 million?
Presumably because that's like waving a "free $75k available here" flag to anyone else who feels like suing them next week, and the week after that?
Our civil justice system needs to be cheaper and more accessible. It shouldn't be possible to wage economic war on a company or individual via the judiciary.
But designing a justice system around "maybe you'll find a charitable person willing to help" seems like a bad idea.
Pointing out problems with the current system is not a logical fallacy, and having a working solution in-hand is not a pre-requisite to observing the existence of problems.
Also, accusing me of using the Nirvana fallacy while also accusing me of not providing an alternative policy is literally a contradiction...
Why cite an exception yet no typical examples while making your case?
Being able to pick the venue of your grievance means a lot.
The general concern is that money provides one the ability to silence other people's speech.
If Thiel had did this against a smaller site that gave up without having its day in court that would be a different matter.
>> Personally, I'm concerned that the individual factors of this case (i.e. Gawker being Gawker) will overshadow the principle at stake, which feels a lot more important than a gossip site.
Thiel isn't on trial in this thread, but our justice system perhaps is.
I mean the free speech of anyone who doesn't have $N million needed to fend off a civil suit. If cases like this and the MJ one become common-place, there's a very real risk of chilling effect.
Incidentally, I think it's probably possible to allow Thiel the ability to sue Gawker into the ground without also having a system where genuinely legal free speech is reserved for people who can afford massive financial risk. So there's absolutely no reason for you to disagree with me just because you think Thiel in on the right side of the Gawker issue...
I'm confused.
>>>>>> Personally, I'm concerned that the individual factors of this case (i.e. Gawker being Gawker) will overshadow the principle at stake, which feels a lot more important than a gossip site.
We are discussing principles and problems that are larger than just these two cases. That's the entire thesis of the comment that started this thread.
It's fairly obvious that (b) is concerning, and also fairly obvious that it takes an actual suit to put a price tag on this problem. That's why the MJ case was presented.
But all of this is obvious and explained in the comments above, so this is getting very pedantic, and I don't see a) what point you're trying to make, or b) how that point is at all relevant to the overall thesis of the root comment.