I'm genuinely a bit shocked to see the press closing ranks around Gawker.

"Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
06/02/2016 at 08:34 • Filed to: None

Looks like Howard Roark might have screwed the pooch.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (67)

ttyymmnn > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 08:46

The Stephen Marche piece was especially good. And if Gawker doesn’t care for his writing, I’d say he nailed Gawker with this well-written paragraph:

I have seen journalists I respect claim that Gawker’s brand of journalism is cruel and hence “ good riddance .” I understand this point of view. Gawker’s outing of Mr. Thiel as gay was cruel. On a lesser scale, the attacks on me always seemed as if the writers were talking about a fictional creation named “Stephen Marche.” In their eyes, because I was a columnist at Esquire, I must therefore be a younger, lousier version of Norman Mailer. It bothered me that they never caught the actual mistakes that I made. They weren’t reading me closely enough to hate me for what I deserved to be hated for.

Ash78, voting early and often > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 08:47

Wow, an analogy to a 56-year-old racist media tactic is the best they can do? They act as if people blackmailing others using the press is some sort of weird, isolated incident. I’m personally shocked to see the old-line mainstream media doing anything but distancing themselves from Gawker. I have a couple friends who are in more mixed-media NYC press circles and the mere mention of Gawker usually gets you some rolled eyes.

His Stigness > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 08:48

While everyone despises Gawker, they realize that this battle has more at stake than just Gawker’s future. This case could set free speech precedent. But, if this stays in Florida I highly doubt that it will be cited in future cases.

If Gawker does their appeal in Florida, I hope they leave at that, because this case will have lasting implications if it goes to goes to the Federal Appeals courts, or God forbid, the Supreme Court.

Party-vi > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 08:51

How are you shocked? A media company was taken to court with the intent of bankrupting them because they ran a piece that interfered with the personal life of a very rich person. If I were a member of the press I would shit bricks if rich people could close down my place of business simply because we reported on their business or personal life.

Bollea’s legal team purposefully dropped the “negligent inflection of emotional distress” claim so Gawker’s insurance company would not be on the hook for legal fees and damages, meaning everything awarded to Bollea is coming out of Gawker coffers, which is why Gawker is laying people off and focusing on quantity over quality. This is financial assassination by Thiel, and it’s perfectly legal.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 08:53

They’re all op-ed pieces though. Also is the Washington post piece seriously trying to equate this lawsuit with the civil rights struggle? Lol wut?

Honeybunchesofgoats > His Stigness
06/02/2016 at 08:55

That was my takeaway from Karle’s article. It’s kind of remarkable to think how a different Supreme Court could have led to us having much more oppressive libel laws like the UK’s.

Honeybunchesofgoats > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts.
06/02/2016 at 08:56

Marche is definitely not a Denton ally.

Honeybunchesofgoats > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 08:58

A part of me expected the more mainstream press to either brush it off or secretly enjoy the schadenfreude. I mean, prior to Thiel revealing his involvement, there definitely seemed to be some schadenfreude going on whenever other outlets reported on the case.

Honeybunchesofgoats > Ash78, voting early and often
06/02/2016 at 09:01

See, that’s sort of my feeling. Obviously it’s in their best interest to support Gawker, but I sort of figured that the amount of disdain for it would have led to them holding back a bit.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 09:07

Thiel shows why you don’t punch above your weight and expect it to just be forgotten about.

ttyymmnn > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts.
06/02/2016 at 09:12

I wouldn’t say they’re equating it, rather using it as an example of how rich people or governments can use the courts to squelch uncomfortable reportage. Even the enemies of Nick Denton see the slippery slope here. If Thiel is successful, they might be next.

DrScientist > Ash78, voting early and often
06/02/2016 at 09:12

it annoys me that i have to come to a gawker site to get my favorite car-related banter. :(

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 09:12

Perfectly legal, and perfectly appropriate. Try to assassinate someone’s character through an outing piece (i know that it shouldn’t be considered that anymore, but if it wasn’t, then outing wouldn’t be news)? I’ll let Samuel L Jackson finish this one up.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 09:13

Yeah, re-read and saw it was Marche. Still though I have to disagree with him on the public’s right to information. The public has a right to information that is in the public’s interest and what a D-list celebrity does in the privacy of his/her bedroom and isn’t committing any crimes isn’t in the public’s interest. If it was then an argument can be made that obtaining naked pictures of female celebrities is in the public’s interest, it’s not and neither is this.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 09:18

WaPo can go horsefuck, obviously.

Flavien Vidal > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 09:20

Well, you know there is a reason why the Press Freedom Index ranks the US in 41st position in between Romania and Haiti lol

The land of the free is not exactly an example in term of freedom :)

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 09:20

they believe that the public right to information is more important than any individual’s right to privacy

They can believe what they want, but the law’s pretty clear on this. So is the jury decision.

Flavien Vidal > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 09:24

Gawker will not go away like this... What is shocking in all this, is that this shows how the american justice system works. You need money and you’ll get what you want. That guy who got outed b Gawker for no reason other than working for a company Gawker did not like a year ago or so.... This guy did not bother suing Gawker in spite of his life being ruined. He knew he could not win.

Had he be a billionnaire, he could have sued. He most certainly win.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Flavien Vidal
06/02/2016 at 09:26

The Press Freedom Index is pretty flawed and ignores things like business realities. An American journalist might be more likely to self-censor because Americans value their privacy and have legal protections to ensure it. Yes, a reporter can be sued for digging into a private citizen’s private life, which is exactly as it should be. Free press does not trump an American’s right to privacy. Entirely unfettered write-whatever press? That’s what started the Spanish American war. I’ll pass.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 09:26

Peter Thiel was already own to friends and business associates. I would have more sympathy for Gawker if they hadn’t done the same thing to that Conde Nast executive last year.

Honeybunchesofgoats > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
06/02/2016 at 09:26

They're easily my least favorite media outlet whose political leanings overlap with my own. They've gotten incredibly click-baity in recent years.

Party-vi > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 09:27

That’s because the other outlets just realized anyone with deep enough pockets can bind their hands and zip their mouths shut. It was all fun and games until Hulkamania ran wild over Gawker.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > ttyymmnn
06/02/2016 at 09:29

His saying that because he can take it doesn’t make outing private citizens or dragging their private lives into the public okay or legally justified. I respect him for being able to take it and go back at them, but he is a columnist whose writing has been criticized by Gawker, not a private citizen who’s been dragged into the open by them.

FoilyDoily > Flavien Vidal
06/02/2016 at 09:31

He could have sued and won - but he would have had to drag everything out into the open and put his family through that. It wasn’t that he didn’t have the money.

BigBlock440 > Flavien Vidal
06/02/2016 at 09:32

Thiel didn’t sue either, he waited until there was a case he could win and paid their legal expenses. Then found another case or two and paid theirs. He doesn’t have any personal cases against them, at least none that I’ve seen.

FoilyDoily > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts.
06/02/2016 at 09:33

As a public figure - trying to stage a “comeback,” his racist ranting about his daughter’s boyfriend is arguably of public interest. Unfortunately, that was all kind of lost amid the sex tape.

Flavien Vidal > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 09:34

Going through the private life of people is how investigative reporting often work though... How else would you do a piece on Robert Durst otherwise? This is where the private life of public persons can be made public. But you are right, privacy should be protected and people should be able to sue abusive media outlet.

But when billionaires can use those laws to bankrupt a media outlet they don’t like because they once did something that was an invasion of privacy... Fuck that. It’s a bit like being fined a million dollar for going 90mph in a 65 mph zone. Kids whose parents get killed by cops for no reasons don’t get ANYWHERE near this kind of money...

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 09:38

Doesn’t matter if he was out to friends or not. He wasn’t out to the world and even if he was, it’s none of Gawker’s business and the fact that they still consider outing of even non-public figures like the Conde Naste exec to be a legitimate source of revenue shows that they’ve not learned anything. I’m adamently for freedom of speech, but this being America, an individual’s right to privacy trumps that. Every lawsuit and upheld court decision affirms this. New media type? Doesn’t matter. It’s the content that does, and if the content is gossip about a private citizen minding their own business, it has no leg to stand on legally. This isn’t like Frank Collin who made himself into a public figure only to be found that he’s full of shit. That’s the kind of investigative “outing” I can get behind. Got an anti-gay preacher caught in the men’s room with another guy? Go for it. Guy who just happens to be gay or who is having an affair? No one’s business.

Flavien Vidal > FoilyDoily
06/02/2016 at 09:42

Meh, no I don’t think so... He’s always been opened about being gay. His official version was that other people were outed in this mess and that ruined their lives. He said himself that he didn’t care that much about himself, but was shocked that his friends got outed too.

And I agree that all this should be sent in front of a judge and Gawker should pay for crap like this. But paying to the point of bankrupcy?? Had a regular dude with not much be outed, he would not have been able to be sued, because he lacks money... The only reason he can fight it and do this kind of shit is because he is a billionnaire. Both parties are fucked up in this story, but in the end it shows that equality in front of the justice in north america is mostly just a question of money.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Flavien Vidal
06/02/2016 at 09:43

Robert Durst is accused of murder. Peter Thiel was accused of liking men. One is newsworthy and in court. One is 100% private and no one’s business. I don’t know how you can say they’re the same thing or say that because some people don’t get the opportunity to punch back that he can’t.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 09:45

I do not have the misfortune of much overlap with them, so given their continual cravenness and dishonesty it’s all the same to me if their press is loaded on a barge on the Potomac and sunk. While on fire.

Don’t even get me started on the “Duranty Did Nothing Wrong” Times, I mean NYT.

Flavien Vidal > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 09:50

Yes, but by limiting access to private life of citizen, you also limit investigations in cases like Robert Durst. You cannot just create a law saying journalist can’t get into people’s life, and adding a little alinea saying “unless it’s about something like murder or rape”. It’s too vague and it’s not how law work. This is why, as despicable as it is, what Gawker did with Thiel, is still perfectly legal. This is also why Thiel never sued Gawker and waited for a case like Hulk to make them pay. He knew he would not have won.

FoilyDoily > Flavien Vidal
06/02/2016 at 09:51

Perhaps we’re talking about different outed individuals.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 09:51

Gawker didn’t do anything reprehensible to Thiel when they “outed” him, as Thiel has connections to matters of public concern. Also, I would consider being “out” if everyone in my family, circle of friends, and business partners knew I were gay. That’s pretty much everyone I would know anyway. It was a shitty article to write, but I don’t think it deserves putting a company and hundreds of people out of business for it. Now, the Conde Nast article on the other hand...

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > ttyymmnn
06/02/2016 at 09:59

Is it though? I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that releasing this sex tape has somehow benefited society. If Gawker had done what any smart news organization would have done (as in immediately taken down the video and issued a public apology/retraction) they would have limited any legal liability and wouldn’t have ended up being taken behind the wood shed.

What Thiel is doing, is already a thriving business model for some companies and I’d argue that preventing this type of thing from happening would actually do more harm than good. If people in a small town in Middle America want to sue a multinational corporation for damages caused by that company dumping waste near their town, do you think they have the money to do that? Or would they have to have the law firm (or some rich guy who wants to bury said company because they’re a competitor of his) front them the money? Would you say that it would be bad if they were no longer allowed to do that and instead have to take on all the liability via some sort of bank loan?

ttyymmnn > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts.
06/02/2016 at 10:02

I have no problem suing when a wrong is perceived. It’s these proxy lawsuits by people with a vendetta, and the means to carry out that vendetta, that is the problem. As for Bollea, he is entirely within his rights to sue. I see nothing newsworthy in what Gawker did. There is no high ground for Denton here. But if he feels he has been wronged, let him sue on his own dime.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > FoilyDoily
06/02/2016 at 10:02

I agree with you on that, but this lawsuit doesn’t have anything to do with that though. Even the most vile person should have the right to privacy if they’re not doing anything wrong at the time, if they don’t then what right do you have?

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > ttyymmnn
06/02/2016 at 10:10

I disagree, if the whole takata airbag issue never came out and I was trying to takata for wrongful death of a loved one, I wouldn’t have the resources possible to take them on. I’d need help funding the lawsuit and couldn’t do that without some sort of proxy set up because you can’t say that Thiel isn’t allowed to pay for someone else’s lawsuit but a law firm fronting the money is.

His Stigness > Honeybunchesofgoats
06/02/2016 at 10:20

So I just read that one, and I have a few quibbles with his argument. First, he calls Gawker a news site, which may be true, but I find it funny. They’re a gossip site in the business of stirring the world’s pot of shit.

But mainly, I disagree with his argument that Thiel’s suit bears resemblance to that of racist Southerners who did not like the North covering their illegal actions. What Gawker has done to incur the wrath of Thiel was out him at a time when being gay was not accepted, and they admitted it may harm his venture capital firm. That was fucking terrible. Gawker may believe they’re on a holy quest to tell the public every little detail of people’s private lives they deem should be in the public, but that doesn’t mean some can’t fight back and argue it is not in the public’s interest to know their private life.

But, as the case specifically involved Hogan, Gawker kind of shot themselves in the foot by airing part of the sex tape. According to current jurisprudence (as far as I know), Hogan is a public figure and his airing his racist comments was warranted, but not the sex tape.

I don’t think that this Hogan case will set far reaching precedence. Or at least, I don’t think it will affect things that actually matter, and will instead just affect the airing of sex tapes.

What will have lasting effects, and the outcome of the appeal has no bearing on this, is that we may see more cases like this where I slighted billionaire or millionaire uses someone else's case to get back at someone. I think Thiel was and is wrong to use Hogan as a surrogate and should have instead gone after Gawker himself as there was no reason to out him publicly, and he could have recovered damages for emotional distress and loss of business. I don't think he ever planned on a bunch of idiot jurors in Florida to award Hogan so much, he just got lucky there.

fintail > Flavien Vidal
06/02/2016 at 10:27

Where isn’t equality about money? It’s the same in the EUSSR or Asia.

Seeing how Gawker treats their commentariat on many sites (especially the thin skinned special snowflake neckbeard Jalopnik FP scribes), I still have a bit of a smirk. I hope some of the blogger pseudo-journalists have some concerns for the next while.

His Stigness > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 10:30

Thiel may have been out to friends, family, and business partners, but he wasn’t out in the public, and the article points out him bring openly gay could him his VC firm because other investors, like Oh say Middle Eastern ones, don’t like gay people. Tbe fact that the author knew it could harm him is why it was wrong. Should he be trying to destroy Gawker? No. Should he have pursued a legal remedy himself? Absolutely.

In my freshly out of school opinion, I think the precedence of this case won’t reach any farther than gossip columns. From what I understand about the current precedence with gossip things like this is if the person is a public figure and the information is pertinent then it’s fair game. Like the Anthony wiener case. Or if Thiel, who is a major investor and board member on important companies were found to be a molester, that would be fair game.

Outing him just because, not fair game.

190octane > His Stigness
06/02/2016 at 10:56

He didn’t have a case though because if the media reports on actions you take and it’s all truthful, there is nothing to sue about.

You can debate the morality of it (outing someone) all you want, but writing an article about a public figure being gay, isn’t slander.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Flavien Vidal
06/02/2016 at 11:08

The issue is when and how it becomes public. If your investigative journalism is based on court documents and then you verify or expound upon it by meeting people close to the subjects, that’s a matter of public interest related to what’s in the public record. If you start with hearsay and rumor about someone’s private life and bring it into the public record, it’s an entirely different situation. I’m not saying that it’s okay to discuss murderers and not discuss other relevant issues related to public figures. The issue is whether it’s relevant or not and what does it achieve. That’s why I specifically brought up Frank Collin. He was a neo-nazi who (oops) turns out was Jewish. That’s a part of his private life that pertains to his public aims. Peter Thiel is a businessman who happens to be gay. That he’s gay is an entirely irrelevant part of his private life unless he starts publicly supporting hate-laws. It achieves nothing apart from making him uncomfortable and stoke gay-as-scandal news. It’s unethical, not journalism, and borderline illegal.

FoilyDoily > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts.
06/02/2016 at 11:17

The racist rant portion of the tape was unpublished and later leaked. The lawsuit was intended to keep that portion of the tape from being released.

FoilyDoily > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts.
06/02/2016 at 11:19

That sort of lawsuit would be fronted by the firm. Wrongful death and personal injury are vastly different worlds than this.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 11:20

I’m not too worried about the futures of Denton, Sargent, Biddle, and co. Hopefully they have none in media. The real journalists seem to be fleeing like rats from a sinking ship and it seems like other outlets are eager to have them anyway. Stigness pretty much nailed it. It’s his decision who he’s out to. As a multinational businessman, there could very well be issues where he’d rather that be kept to himself and he’s not a policy figure. He’s a businessman. As such (unless he starts a chain of pray-away-the-gay camps or similar), there is no controversy and this is not news. The issue I have with the outing probably has more to do with the fact that it’s considered news at all. It’s relying on people clicking because being gay is scandalous. Denton especially should know better. He probably does, but just doesn’t have any scruples.

Party-vi > His Stigness
06/02/2016 at 11:22

It is considered newsworthy because of the implications it could have with foreign investors and investors/clients in the US. It also has implications with his personal political beliefs, considering he gave gay-hating Ted Cruz $250,000. That and Thiel supports the Committee to Project Journalists, but is actively working to put a news organization out of business an publicly backing Trump, who wants to make it easier to file libel suits and to limit the 1st amendment.

Stating Thiel is gay was not libelous, defamatory or an invasion of privacy, but should have been part of a larger relevant story.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 11:26

Thiel is a policy figure when he donates money to lobbying efforts and political candidates through his business ventures. It’s controversial and it’s news that a gay man supported Ted Cruz. Granted, this support is only relevant now and was not in 2007. The Conde Nast story proved that the Gawker editorial staff don’t have scruples.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 11:39

He didn’t start publicly donating to political causes until after the 2007 article.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 11:40

“News” organization.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 11:44

How did you confirm that? It’s not like him being outed by Gawker spurred him into political action.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 11:45

It looks to me like it kind of did. I went through the list of his foundations and endorsements and it looks like they were all set up starting in 2007.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 11:46

Well Gawker Media certainly isn’t a fish and chips restaurant.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 11:46

With the way they like covering gossip, may as well be ;)

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 11:47

Only if Drew Magary is cooking.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > FoilyDoily
06/02/2016 at 11:48

It was unpublished by Gawker because they didn’t have that portion of the sex tape in their possession at the time they released the sex tape. That’s why it’s not part of this lawsuit and Gawker couldn’t use it as a defense.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 11:48

Well shitballs. Is that the same year he invested in Facebook?

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > FoilyDoily
06/02/2016 at 11:50

What’s the difference between a firm fronting the money instead of a rich guy with a vendetta? Couldn’t a law firm also have a vendetta against someone?

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/02/2016 at 12:20

No, he was invested in them early, but it doesn’t look like any of his political activities started until 07.

His Stigness > 190octane
06/02/2016 at 13:12

But if it's deemed no newsworthy, you can possibly claim emotional distress and financial loss, which is what Hogan was arguing. Thiel could have argued the same thing if he lost clients.

190octane > His Stigness
06/02/2016 at 18:10

I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see how publishing something that is true opens you up to being sued for causing emotional distress or financial loss.

The Hogan situation is different and I’m still not sure how I feel about it (although $140 million is a fucking joke either way) but I think if he had a leg to stand on, he would've sued back then.

Flavien Vidal > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/02/2016 at 19:45

In the case of Peter Thiel it would certainly be pointed out that outing him was in interest considering his very right-wing views on everything, in order to show a man that would embrace everything that is good for himself, and not give a fuck about the rest. He is the archetype of the extreme right-wing nuts, share all their points and even more (ie: women should not have a right to vote, democracy and freedom are no longer compatible...etc etc) and at the same time, helps the LGBT community his political friend don’t give a fuck about JUST because he happens to be gay. I have not even read the Peter Thiel piece and don’t really give a crap to be honest, but I would tend to think this was one of the reason he was targeted by Gawker.

So yes he does support hate laws (against women mostly, but he also supports dictatorship for a truly free capitalism) and I would tend to think this is the reason he was outed in the first place. That doesn’t make it right, but that would be reason some people would understand

His Stigness > 190octane
06/02/2016 at 19:54

Just because it’s true, doesn’t mean it can’t be damaging. If you read the piece the author says he knows that outing him could cause him to lose clients, as everyone outside of the Valley is homophobic, so therefore you can argue by publishing something private you can be liable for financial loss. I’m not a lawyer either, but that’s my opinion on that.

And $140 million is fucking stupid, especially considering it was more than even they asked for.

Flavien Vidal > fintail
06/02/2016 at 20:05

It certainly isn’t. While not cheap, the way the system works in most europe work so that people can defend themselves and not being able to pay the greatest lawyer around does not equal finishing in jail, guilty. You also have to pay insane court fees that poor people cannot afford. On average, a trial will cost 2500$ to the defendent in the US, appealing a decision is often given up by the defendant because it will cost on average 1000 extra $$ to appeal, 500$ just in fees. And don’t forget it’s the guy who already could not afford a lawyer and most likely advise to plead guilty even if you’re not, because you’re not gonna have enough money to fight it.

Considering how you see Europe and the image you have of it, you’re certainly not going to enjoy getting lectured by a “socialist-rat-looking- Brit” like John Oliver, but as someone who has lived in the US and had to defend himself in court for stuff I was not responsible for, the cost of justice in the US is insane.

So nope, that does not happen in EUSSR, sorry...

fintail > Flavien Vidal
06/02/2016 at 20:55

If you say so, maybe most workable for those who can buy their way out of it, just like across the pond. I’ve spent ample time in Europe, even in France, and the differences are often barely skin deep. The EUSSR is becoming the same late stage of capitalism oligocracy the US has marched towards.

So what are the legal fees in the EUSSR vs Murka (and equality has to do with more than legal fees), you said they aren’t cheap even in the decaying paradise. And yeah, whiny youtube videos don’t impress, few voices can be less credible than British accents (unfortunately, they are all American).

Flavien Vidal > fintail
06/03/2016 at 03:43

In France getting a trial cost 35€. An appeal also cost 35€ + 150€ of contribution. These fees are voided if the person does not earn enough money to pay for it (if that person only earns under 1000€ per month, living alone, 100% of the court fees will be taken care of, between 1001€ and 1182€ 55% of court fees will be taken care off and from 1183€ up to 1500€ per month, 25% of court fees are taken care off). Fees change depending on how many people (kids for exemple, you have to take care of... For exemple instead of 1000€ or less for 100% of court fees voided, it get up to 1360€ per month, if you have 2 kids at charge to get those fees voided.)

What can be expensive are lawyering fees. Even if it’s not anywhere near as expensive as in the US, it still can be a lot of money for certain persons. “Free” lawyers do have time for their clients though, unlike in many places in the US.

Fines also are cheaper, but if driving related, come with a loss of points on the license. So people don’t ruin themselves financially if they make a mistake, but if they do too many, they easily loose their license. If they cannot pay that fine, they also don’t end up having to pay extra fees that multiply the fine by 5 or 10 like in the US. If they don’t pay, they can get their license suspended though, unless they explain clearly why they can’t pay and when/how they can pay.

Also when you get a 50€, it’s 50€... There is no 50€ fine + 200€ worth of fees. I once got a 90$ fine in NY state... But with all the fees and other crap, the fine was around 350$ in reality. That’s utter bullshit. Luckily I was living in Canada at the time so my insurance rate would not climb up like crazy like it happen in the US, even if you get caught speed once in your lifetime.

So yes, it is nowhere near as expensive as in the US, but it still can be a burdain for people that are really poor and in need of help. They will not see their lives ruined for a simple 200$ fine like in the states though.

fintail > Flavien Vidal
06/03/2016 at 11:32

Ah, you experienced an east coast state, the corruption bed of the US (along with Illinois and Ohio). Why would one have such fees for a traffic ticket? I’ve had one speeding ticket in my life, around ~$100, no fees, simple ticket - but I am on the west coast. In many areas, and even in France I am sure, the revenue enforcement heroes target vehicles from out of the area, so there was no court case (as doing so wouldn’t be worth my time), just a ticket to pay, I chalked it up as punishment for not seeing the speed trap, and moved on. A huge amount of traffic enforcement is revenue-based, same in NA as it is in Europe. I am not aware of horrible insurance rates for a single simple traffic infraction, either. For repeat offenders, yes, or for more reckless or drunk driving - but when it comes to that, harsh penalties might be very deserved. There’s a difference between making a simple mistake, and being a dangerous fool. For a minor speeding etc ticket, lives are not ruined, and I have seen no data to prove otherwise. The key problem with American crime and punishment is the prosecution/persecution of non-violent drug offenses.

I’d rather see progressive fines for the wealthy who pretend to be so responsible and intelligent yet who drive quite poorly rather than subsidies for those of more meager incomes, or especially subsidies for those with children. I know a couple European areas have embraced this, but they don’t seem to be ones drinking the Brussels Kool-Aid.

Still not seeing how money isn’t a key component in justice in what used to be Europe. The golden rule is the same everywhere.