Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazaroclapp | Hacker News Reader

Isn't this the same argument that gets thrown around when people point out the long term precedent implications in having Apple write a backdoor for the FBI?

"You are defending a murdering terrorist!"

"No, I am standing for the security of our communications infrastructure and, by extension, our society"

Now:

"You are defending a criminal low-brow rag that cares nothing for violating someone's privacy in the name of profit!"

"No, I am questioning whether we want people secretly funding punitive lawsuits for their own ends, regardless of merit. I also think I personally would be fine with it if you remove 'secretly'."

Sometimes the means matter, even when you agree with the immediate ends. I respect Thiel a hell of a lot more than I respect Gawker, and yet I am not sure this is how we want to do things.

View on HN

What is the alternative? If you can't afford to sue a company rightfully you don't get to? What is wrong with paying someone's legal fees, regardless of your motives? Are you going to make transfers of money illegal? He could've lost the case in the court of law and lost his money.

Perhaps not phrased well enough in my post, but as I said, my personal take is that - so long as the quality of access to justice can't be fully separated from wealth - third-party funding of lawsuits should be allowed, just not in secret. For an immediate fix: have parties disclose any third-parties funding their suits and any conflicts of interests they might have with the opposing side. Make the judge and jury aware of this and document it in the public proceedings of the suit.

That doesn't really make any sense, it would be more reasonable to say third-parties funding suits must disclose if they DO NOT have a conflict of interest. What, exactly, is the reportable harm in being bankrolled by a third party anyways? By definition the plaintiff already has a conflict of interest with the defendant, adding on another conflict with the defendant isn't going to change things. A case will be decided by two things: 1. The merit of the complaint, and 2. The availability of money to pursue the complaint (in no particular order). Either way, it's not up to defendant to decide whether or not the plaintiff is receiving poor legal advice due to a third party, it's up to that plaintiff. So what reasonable outcome would disclosures have, other than potentially taint a jury due to matters not of law or fact? If Satan himself had bankrolled Gawker for a case in which they were, by clear evidence of fact, innocent would that funding have any bearing?

The Bollea v Gawker case itself is already a counter-argument to your suggested fix.

What would have been different if it was known upfront Bollea had third party funding and was willing to use it? The facts of the dispute haven't changed, so the end result should not have changed.

The main effect is that Gawker may have changed their approach to defending/settling the case. Which is a good argument not to disclose how the applicants are funded.

We can defend the press' freedom to express any opinion or fact without allowing them to publish people's private sex tapes.

Yes, and furthermore it is up to Gawker to decide how to structure themselves. If they break the law under the same entity they do legitimate journalism, they are taking the risk.

> regardless of merit

But in this case, it seems the lawsuits have merit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com