Financing lawsuits without merit is an abuse of the court system and wrong. That didn't kill Gawker despite them trying to spin that it did. Gawker was fine with its legal fees, even in the Hogan case.

This website has never published nude pictures/video of Franco and Dunham that were taken without their consent. That's a pretty big difference there.

I never knew this book existed and it's sad to me that it does. I enjoyed Zmuda's first book that preceded Man on the Moon quite a bit. This one sounds like a horror show.

I don't think that mitigates facts through 'obscurity' though your distinction between lending and giving certainly obscures the point. You are arguing that this lawsuit is not meritorious, not because of the conduct causing rise to the lawsuit, but merely because a third party funded it. If the Hogan lawsuit was…

If a doctor cuts off my leg by accident and noted scumbag Donald Trump fronts me money for the lawsuit, does that invalidate the lawsuit?

If they hadn't done anything colossally stupid, then the billionaire wouldn't have been able to fund a lawsuit. I'm no fan of Thiel by any means, but all he did was provide money to another party to fund a lawsuit against a millionaire and his company. What killed Gawker, unfortunately, was their unwillingness to…

Remember when Comedy Central replaced SNL reruns with MADTV reruns. It was like having a decent but bland cereal that would usually do in a pinch with off-brand Kibbles N Bits.

Sorry, that wasn't me. It was my upfront, honest fake spokesperson that speaks to the media.

"Trump, at least has the upfront and honest thing going for him."

The party in favor of eliminating most economic regulation cannot be, in any way, considered anti-corporate or limiting the amount of corporate influence on our life.

"My values are pretty closely inline with the Libertarian philosophy, but I liked Bernie's goals for removing corporate interests from Washington and his goals of reforming Washington D.C. "

Movies for People Who Really Want to Like Movies and Then They See The Movie And It's Really Bad, But They Feel Invested So They Pretend Like It Wasn't So Bad And Say Nondesciptive Things Like "It was FUN" or "It Was Good except half the characters, plot and jokes," And Then After Reflection Everybody Kind Of Admits…

I'm telling you why people thought it was depressing. For the reasons I said. The way the scenes were shot led the film to a reading where Superman didn't appear to care enough about the collateral damage he was creating. You just won't accept it. You can still like the movie, it's OK. But I'm on the side of…

It's unfair to television to lump it all in with Whedon.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I hated this movie that I wanted to love and clearly am biased against it.

I meant Snyder. He didn't convey what he was trying to convey. It was a pretty common criticism, so something went awry. I'm explaining why.

Then he failed.

He gave money only after getting caught by the Washington Post for not giving money despite making the claim that he did. Which he reacted to by yanking the credentials of the newspaper. He still lied about the amount, lied about where the money was going, and lied about making personal donations. I'm guessing the…

Man, you spoke really soon.

Well, if legendary creative placeholder Gail Simone doesn't like it!