The only attack is a single phrase, referring to him as a "sociopathic billionaire". I don't think his status as a billionaire is questioned, so you must object to the use of the one word "sociopathic". Let's check the DSM-IV:
Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.
Well, not exactly clear-cut, but I think a reasonable set of people, perhaps including Thiel, would agree that he has "a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture"
I recall that Thiel wants to get blood transfusions from people younger than him to prolong his own life.
Many of the apparently absurd claims about Thiel are, well, absolutely true. Indeed, this particular one was linked directly to a news article about it.
Am I alone in liking Peter Thiel? None of what he's done, including the blood, seems particularly wrong to me. With the exception of supporting Trump. But I think he supports Trump because he feels influence on the man is underpriced considering his 20% chance of winning, rather than any love of his policies.
As far as I am aware he has never been diagnosed by a licensed psychologist. Indications of sociopathic tendencies are not evidence enough that he is a sociopath, diagnosis is.
Is describing someone as sociopathic really any different than saying that they have indications of sociopathic tendencies, though? If I describe someone as crepuscular based on when I see them active, it doesn't make them a short-eared owl.
While it is an attack, their cite a link for every claim they make against him. IMO they're entitled to attack as long as they have the evidence to back it up.
Can you blame them? Trump backer, vampire, "I-don't-like-this-publication-so-lets-kill-it", "competition-is-for-chumps", "lets-create-a-state-in-international-waters-so-we-can-do-whatever" Thiel is just a toxic character these days.
The ability to sell portions of your right to justice is both an important freedom and a check on the ability of those with power to trample on those without. It is interesting that so many people who claim to champion the rights of the powerless are vigorously opposed to the concept.
> The ability to sell portions of your right to justice is both an important freedom and a check on the ability of those with power to trample on those without.
How? If everyone has equal access to justice and the justice system, there is no need to "sell portions of your right to justice".
Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would have
<equal access to justice and the justice system>.
But it does not work like that. Not even close.
Money equals access. Sure, technically, you can plead your own case, but it will require you to give up literally everything else in your life and you'll probably lose against the professionals (how well would you do against the professionals in your favorite sport if you dedicated the next 10 months of your life to it -- remember, they've been doing it for decades and make a living at it?).
The fact is that you need serious funds to prosecute or even defend a case bigger than small claims court. I'm in such a case right now and need funding (which is how I got to this article); tho I won't post the details, the requirements will run well into six figures just to pursue what I already had in a written contract. Do you have that kind of pocket change lying around? I don't, and I don't think most of the rest of us do either.
While I had a vague idea before, it has now become blindingly obvious that money is required for access to proper justice. While I have much better access than many people, it is also obvious that I also have much less access than others.
So, yes, IFF everyone has equal access, there's no need.
But we don't, so there is a real need.
I agree that money equates to access in the real world.
I agree that a common tactic is "spend baby, spend".
But I still fail to see how "selling your access to justice", equates to having a bankroll or how it is fundamental. That was all I was asking, how? In the Peter Thiel case, Hogan didn't "sell" his access to justice, Peter was just bankrolling him because he both didn't like Gawker. Peter wasn't "selling" his access to justice, he used Hogan to accomplish a personal goal.
So I ask again, how is "selling your access to justice" fundamental? Or even in your case, so that we have an example and I can understand, how would you, or anyone else, sell their access to justice in order to benefit you in that case? Imo you would need a bankroll, same as Hogan.
I guess I'm reading it as the plaintiff having to 'sell their access' to the system, as part of the potential proceeds, in order to get justice.
If you don't have the requisite funds, you sell part of your potential proceeds (which become profits to the investor) in order to get access to the justice system. Or, in Hogan's case, sold his case (access to the justice system) to Theil so they could both achieve their goals.
(so maybe, it's just a less-clear phrase than it should be?)
Funding lawsuits for profit is a well-known society anti-pattern called "champerty." It is no longer illegal (as blocking it interfered with access to justice) but when used for profit or other agendas it is pretty damaging (think patent trolls).
By "other agendas" I meant any issue not claimed in the lawsuit at hand, not agendas that differed from my own. It is a bit of a subjective point as one could have a legitimate interest in funding somebody who has been harmed in the same way you have in a different event (so you would not have standing, but at least a related agenda). But funding a suit you have no real interest in just "for the win" is a bit wild.
A key issue related to champerty is barratry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)), being: "overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation" or who bring "repeated or persistent acts of litigation" for the purposes of profit or harassment.
Champerty (the funding of the litigation of others) is a problem in no small part because it allows the wealthy to engage in barratry (frivolous or vexatious litigation).
It's an anti pattern when it's used in a way that wasn't originally intended and causes a net loss for society. E.g, class action lawsuit against small manufacturing companies. These can cost more to fight than to pay off, even when you are in the right.
I totally understand why Peter Thiel felt the way he did about Gawker. Outing someone is a HORRIBLE thing to do. I can't underscore that enough. Especially in the way that they did. They engaged in yellow journalism and hid behind the shield of reporting.
That being said, this idea that we can extinguish the flame of reporting with a firehose of money is a horrible precedent. This is essentially saying that the rich few can determine what is reported to the masses due to their wealth. Allowing things like this endangers the important investigative reporting that uncovers things like bad working conditions, corruption and other horrible things that go on in society.
Don't understate the serious amount of wrongdoing on Gawker's part in that lawsuit. After that giant, public "we're not going to obey the court order we were just given" article, there's no way in hell Gawker was planning on wining the lawsuit. My guess is they were planning on out-spending Hogan and pushing a settlement on him when he ran out of money.
It wasn't until much later that they found out they wouldn't be able to buy their way out of trouble.
I'm not saying that Gawker was right. They were very wrong. But this is not the type of justice that should be doled out. It does more harm to us as a society than good.
I do think that there should have been serious repercussions for Gawker. I can't say what those should have been. But I know that this wasn't the right route to take.
What you're saying is that you would have preferred that Gawker's strategy of outspending Hogan had worked, so that not only would he have had his privacy violated and reputation ruined, but he should also be bankrupt.
33 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 76.7 ms ] threadAntisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.
Well, not exactly clear-cut, but I think a reasonable set of people, perhaps including Thiel, would agree that he has "a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture"
Many of the apparently absurd claims about Thiel are, well, absolutely true. Indeed, this particular one was linked directly to a news article about it.
How? If everyone has equal access to justice and the justice system, there is no need to "sell portions of your right to justice".
But it does not work like that. Not even close.
Money equals access. Sure, technically, you can plead your own case, but it will require you to give up literally everything else in your life and you'll probably lose against the professionals (how well would you do against the professionals in your favorite sport if you dedicated the next 10 months of your life to it -- remember, they've been doing it for decades and make a living at it?).
The fact is that you need serious funds to prosecute or even defend a case bigger than small claims court. I'm in such a case right now and need funding (which is how I got to this article); tho I won't post the details, the requirements will run well into six figures just to pursue what I already had in a written contract. Do you have that kind of pocket change lying around? I don't, and I don't think most of the rest of us do either.
While I had a vague idea before, it has now become blindingly obvious that money is required for access to proper justice. While I have much better access than many people, it is also obvious that I also have much less access than others.
So, yes, IFF everyone has equal access, there's no need. But we don't, so there is a real need.
I agree that a common tactic is "spend baby, spend".
But I still fail to see how "selling your access to justice", equates to having a bankroll or how it is fundamental. That was all I was asking, how? In the Peter Thiel case, Hogan didn't "sell" his access to justice, Peter was just bankrolling him because he both didn't like Gawker. Peter wasn't "selling" his access to justice, he used Hogan to accomplish a personal goal.
So I ask again, how is "selling your access to justice" fundamental? Or even in your case, so that we have an example and I can understand, how would you, or anyone else, sell their access to justice in order to benefit you in that case? Imo you would need a bankroll, same as Hogan.
If you don't have the requisite funds, you sell part of your potential proceeds (which become profits to the investor) in order to get access to the justice system. Or, in Hogan's case, sold his case (access to the justice system) to Theil so they could both achieve their goals.
(so maybe, it's just a less-clear phrase than it should be?)
By "other agendas" I meant any issue not claimed in the lawsuit at hand, not agendas that differed from my own. It is a bit of a subjective point as one could have a legitimate interest in funding somebody who has been harmed in the same way you have in a different event (so you would not have standing, but at least a related agenda). But funding a suit you have no real interest in just "for the win" is a bit wild.
Champerty (the funding of the litigation of others) is a problem in no small part because it allows the wealthy to engage in barratry (frivolous or vexatious litigation).
That being said, this idea that we can extinguish the flame of reporting with a firehose of money is a horrible precedent. This is essentially saying that the rich few can determine what is reported to the masses due to their wealth. Allowing things like this endangers the important investigative reporting that uncovers things like bad working conditions, corruption and other horrible things that go on in society.
True, but he did feed the beast, producing a Streisand Effect. I had no idea he was gay (not that I care either way) until he won this lawsuit.
It wasn't until much later that they found out they wouldn't be able to buy their way out of trouble.
I do think that there should have been serious repercussions for Gawker. I can't say what those should have been. But I know that this wasn't the right route to take.
That's your justice.