My point is the courts decide what's bad. That's why the fact mother Jones won in court in the end is significant here.
> 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?