A millionaire like Hogan couldn’t do it.

I never stood a chance.

Josh Marshall thinks he’s a progressive speaking up for the poors, but he’s really only defending his only narrow interests.

The issue isn’t Thiel taking Gawker to court, the rich have always had access. The issue is the denial of the court system to anyone other than millionaires. (Or in this case, billionaires.)

Good. More of it, please.

There is now some limit on punitive damages which have to have some relationship to the actual damages and a relationship to the defendants wealth. But if “actual” damages for intangible “injuries” such as invasion of privacy can be in unlimited amounts, including far exceeding the wealth of the defendant, it becomes a de facto punitive damages award.

I have no problem with damage awards based on actual injuries, be it medical costs, loss of income or property and even some allowance for the intangibles that accompany the actual injuries such as pain and suffering. And I have no problem with an invasion of privacy claim which has resulted in embarrassment or even financial loss to a victim. But it is troubling, to say the least, when a jury can unilaterally decide to award almost unlimited amounts of money (free of any limitations of “punitive damages”) against a defendant whom it decides to dislike. Surely there should be some limit.

Because Gawker’s journalistic practices are widely viewed as despicable and abusive, Thiel’s funding the lawsuit in this case would be generally viewed as being an appropriate way for Gawker’s victims to get justice. After all, it’s the only way these victims could afford the cost of the litigation.

Therefore, I think it is not a good idea to use that case as some kind of argument against 3d party lawsuit funding. Most people would find the case supports the necessity and propriety of such funding, whatever the actual long-term negative consequences would be. I suggest finding a more sympathetic defendant (which would be virtually any other civil defendant).