That's only true if you believe judicial outcomes don't depend on the financial resources of the parties involved.
That's the ideal, but I don't believe it.
The judicial system of course is culpable, but it's much bigger than the courts themselves: Voters, politicians, legislatures, the legal industry, etc.
But the fact that you or I think they are innocent or guilty shouldn't even be relevant. We're not the jury, we didn't hear attorneys from both sides in a legal process, etc. We need to support a fair process, the rule of law not the rule of wealthy men or the angry mob.
I may think someone is guilty of a crime, but that doesn't mean I should shoot them or otherwise abuse them.
Relaxing restrictions against them was a big mistake, IMHO.
His goal, depending on who you talk to, was either to destroy Gawker or destroy the business model that funds Gawker, so as to prevent the general problem. I find it very weird that someone would come to a site about startups and suggest it irrelevant that a billionaire is secretly trying to destroy an entire business model (or maybe just a company).
It might also have turned out differently if not for Thiel's secrecy. Many people have pointed out Gawker's unforced errors during the trial. If they had known that it was not Bollea alone they were fighting but also a vindictive billionaire, would they have been more circumspect? I expect so. That might not have changed the verdict, but it certainly could have changed the size of the award.
And let's not forget that Thiel apparently influenced strategy. This was all uncovered, after all, because of certain unusual choices made by Bollea that reduced the potential size of his award but increased the chances of destroying Gawker.
I find this objection to be bizarre. I am aware of no ethical or legal rules that require the wronged to structure the suit filed for the well-being or convenience of the wrongdoer. If Thiel and Bollea made an agreement to arrange the claims in a particular way in exchange for funding of the suit, I fail to see any problem there.
I have spoken to a chap on here who apparently thought it was a legal obligation on the defendant to seek the highest financial settlement and that deviation from this aim was prima facie evidence for corruption. It's just a hail of non sequiturs one after the next.
This is of course when they're not claiming that we should return to the feudal age laws, apart from all the ones they don't like, which would be almost all of them.
I fancy myself quite the neo-victorian and enjoy steampunk fashion but even I wouldn't go back that far. Not sure what would happen to Gawker Media's Jezebel under the auspices of the Witchfinder General but it would probably bear some similarity to descriptions of that namesake in the Bible.
It is quite funny to watch all these journalists LARPing into the middle ages. Much like the judge of this court case, they hate not being taken seriously, but how can you take them seriously when they're quoting non-existent laws from countries that don't exist anymore. It's like the title of a book found in a library from a Harry Potter novel.
There's a heap of principals I think are good ideas but I don't pretend they should exist as codified law just because it suits me at this time. That is delusional thinking.
-10 points from Hufflepuff.
Given that it appears that Thiel directly influenced the legal strategy in ways that increase the odds of Gawker's destruction, I think it's ridiculous to say that Thiel's involvement is irrelevant to the story of Gawker's destruction. Thiel threatened it, wanted it, paid for it, and got it. That seems pretty relevant to me.
It would be bizarre if it wasn't mentioned.
But I despise barratry and maintenance even more, and believe that relaxing restrictions against them is a major failure of modern American jurisprudence.
If he was not suing an unsavoury gossip-monger the discussion around this would be vastly different.
Irrespective of the legality this was a spiteful campaign at odds with the stated case(s) involved.
Yes he should be held to account for it.
Edit: change to clarify middle paragraph.
Is this a UK/US thing? Being outed in the UK was a political action for sometime in the 80s but has more or less had its time - it has no shock value and little political value. Or is the focus on the supposed cause of thiels actions the irrelevant part?
To me, the problem when we say Thiel should be held in account for funding the lawsuit is that we're implicitly admitting the court can be used as a weapon, and we're putting the onus on him not to use it, instead of putting it on the court not to allow itself to be used as such.
Funding a lawsuit should, at worst, cost some time and maybe some money in legal fees to the defendant, and at best it should help to achieve justice.
Anyway, what he did was legal. There's nothing to be held accountable for. Whether or not it's right or wrong in general is not really a topic I'm interested in. Since the legal process worked as it's supposed to, I believe this to be what you might call right though. Gawker has had this coming. If they hadn't made it so easy by publishing garbage, Theil would have been powerless.
Would you say the same thing about the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Organization of Woman, and Lambda Legal -- all of whom have litigated to achieve political ends.
And political is not quite the right term - this seems way more personal and vindictive