> It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit
Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. The motive is something that exists only in his head--people can, and will, invent motives consistent with whatever their opinion of a person is.
Insofar as there's an argument that lawsuit funding should be open, well, I submit that perhaps the laws on that should be changed if this is truly at issue.
"Dear members of the jury, please be aware that the accuser is partly supported by third-party X, who has conflicts of interest Y, Z and W with the accused." is all I am asking for.
> Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him.
For the record, I am far more pro-Thiel than I am pro-Gawker, although I base my judgement only on their public reputations. I am actually more concerned about the general idea than the specific parties in this case, and I think the result of the suit is correct, I just wonder about the means and the precedent that you can use a third-party's legitimate complaint to launch a punitive lawsuit.
In what way would that knowledge aid the jury in coming to an impartial verdict? Peter Thiel had and has nothing to do with the case itself. The facts and merits of the actual case are unchanged by his involvement and as such this information is immaterial.
Usually people bring civil suits in order to get justice for some wrong that has been done to them, not to get paid for being an instrument in the revenge fantasy of a billionaire. I think the jury certainly has a vested interest in knowing if the case is of the first type or the second. Society most definitely does.
In this case it's the first. What those of us who are looking at this case with more long-term consequences in mind are worried about is the second.
> Usually people bring civil suits in order to get justice for some wrong that has been done to them
The jury can decide whether some wrong has been done based on the facts of the case itself. If some wrong has been done, that's true regardless of who footed the bill. If no wrong has been done, that's true regardless of who footed the bill.
Judging cases based on who we do and do not like is something our justice system has been set up to avoid.
It's not about who we do and do not like. Civil cases have a very, very low standard of proof (not really proof at all - 50% + 1 means you just need to hint suggestively that a thing happened and collect your cash) and can be brought for essentially any reason. They are prone to abuse and often used vindictively, or as harassment, or as a tool for leverage in negotiations, or because a person was found not guilty. If we do as you suggest then the justice system is just acting as yet another mechanism for the wealthy and powerful to enforce their will upon the poor and powerless.
That would tend to introduce biases in the case. Court cases are not supposed to be about the people, but the events that happened. Many aspects of the court system deliberately attempt to remove such information from jurors to avoid such biases.
That said, I tend to think it should be a public record outside of court at least.
Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. The motive is something that exists only in his head--people can, and will, invent motives consistent with whatever their opinion of a person is.
Insofar as there's an argument that lawsuit funding should be open, well, I submit that perhaps the laws on that should be changed if this is truly at issue.