怎樣能合法地拔掉眼中釘,？對(duì)于這個(gè)問題，我的第一反應(yīng)是八卦網(wǎng)站Gawker和職業(yè)摔角手胡克?霍根對(duì)簿公堂的最新進(jìn)展,。今年3月,，霍根在一起色情錄像的起訴中向Gawker索賠1.4億美元,，狠狠教訓(xùn)了Gawker一番。

鑒于有些人可能沒有持續(xù)關(guān)注,，在此補(bǔ)一下最新進(jìn)展。據(jù)《福布斯》報(bào)道,，霍根索賠案得到了科技業(yè)億萬富翁彼得?泰爾的資助,。《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》此前的報(bào)道證實(shí)了這一點(diǎn),?！陡２妓埂贩Q，泰爾是此案中一些趕盡殺絕的法律手段的背后黑手,，無所不用其極地想毀掉Gawker及其出版人尼克?登頓,，讓他們永不翻身。

回想起來,，在一開始,，此案本應(yīng)該是有關(guān)原則的討論，是霍根的隱私權(quán)和Gawker的自由言論權(quán)之爭(zhēng),，結(jié)果上演了一場(chǎng)富豪痛擊媒體的復(fù)仇大戲,。

不少人都大為震動(dòng)，包括《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的前公眾事務(wù)編輯瑪格麗特?蘇利文在內(nèi),。

但不是所有人都不爽,。有些人看到Gawker倒霉就很開心，比如倡導(dǎo)原始人飲食的專家約翰?杜蘭特,。

但無論你支持哪方,，都應(yīng)該先想想，泰爾的手段究竟合不合法,?？辞宄甲隽耸裁础Ｌ柾低到柚鴦e人的訴訟來打壓媒體,，而且他和霍根還都裝作沒事人一樣,。

假如報(bào)道屬實(shí)，泰爾與霍根的這種行徑讓法律系統(tǒng)里原本就昏暗的角落（即訴訟融資）陰影更重,。我的同事羅杰?帕羅夫曾在一篇特寫里介紹過一個(gè)臭名昭著的案子,，雪佛龍是被告。他在特寫里解釋說,，訴訟融資通常是指投資者幫助負(fù)擔(dān)訴訟的費(fèi)用,，勝訴后分得部分賠償作為回報(bào)。

本案情況有所不同,。這次是一位億萬富豪利用訴訟來借刀殺人,，借機(jī)報(bào)復(fù)Gawker在2007年曝光他的隱私,。

為什么合法，因?yàn)槔弦惶椎挠⒚婪ㄏ捣ㄒ?guī)曾經(jīng)禁止“助訴與幫訴”,，通俗點(diǎn)說就是禁止“資助他人的訴訟,，要么為了找麻煩，要么為了獲得分成,?！钡珪r(shí)間久了，這個(gè)規(guī)定的效力已經(jīng)逐漸衰落,。

加拿大麥吉爾大學(xué)的憲法教授斯蒂芬?斯科特解釋說,，英美法系中過去明確規(guī)定禁止律師接手不確定事件的案子，隨著“助訴與幫訴”的禁令失效,，美國許多州都出臺(tái)立法為律師解禁,。

斯科特說：“大多數(shù)人都認(rèn)為老一套法律陳腐過時(shí)，壓迫人性,?！彼赋觯捎诜罱雇ㄟ^外部融資訴訟,，因而無力負(fù)擔(dān)訴訟費(fèi)用的人也就無法伸張正義,。

而隨著過時(shí)法規(guī)失效，一些企業(yè)正在把訴訟融資變成大生意,。這可能意味著,，更多人有機(jī)會(huì)得到法庭的公正判決，但正如法律博客Above the Law的創(chuàng)始人大衛(wèi)?拉特指出的,，道德風(fēng)險(xiǎn)也隨之增加,。

或許公開披露可以解決問題：碰到類似于泰爾的富人資助訴訟，大家不是都有興趣了解嗎,？事實(shí)上,，現(xiàn)在并不是非公之于眾不可。服務(wù)銀行和對(duì)沖基金等客戶的訴訟公司Burford Capital認(rèn)為,，法律規(guī)定得“無比清晰……沒有義務(wù)披露訴訟融資協(xié)議的內(nèi)容,。”

拉特在推特（Twitter）上發(fā)的一個(gè)帖子指出,，有些律師會(huì)自愿披露融資的協(xié)議,，但他也表示，沒有披露的一般義務(wù),。

同時(shí),，像Gawker這樣的被告可能試圖利用法律發(fā)現(xiàn)程序，找出隱藏在訴訟背后的敵人,，但效果也有限,。因?yàn)樵婵梢砸笾T如“律師-當(dāng)事人保密”或“律師服務(wù)成果保密”等特權(quán),，關(guān)閉被告追究的大門。

訴訟融資到底要發(fā)展到什么程度,？天知道?，F(xiàn)在泰爾就創(chuàng)造了一種新模式，敏感脆弱的億萬富翁可以毀掉一家媒體,，甚至無需向其他任何人披露,。而且這是完全合法的。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

How can this be legal? That was my initial reaction to the latest twist in the gutter fight between gossip site Gawker and wrestler Hulk Hogan, who body-slammed the site for $140 million in a March verdict over a sex tape.

In case you missed it, the latest twist is that the Hogan lawsuit is being bank-rolled by billionaire tech mogul Peter Thiel, according to a Forbes report, since corroborated by the New York Times. The reports say that Thiel is responsible for a series of scorched earth legal tactics aimed at destroying Gawker and its publisher, Nick Denton, forever.

Recall, in the beginning, this case was supposed to be about principle: Hogan’s right to privacy versus Gawker’s right to free speech. Instead, it’s really just about a rich man’s vendetta against a media outlet he sees as his enemy.

Many people, including the former public editor of the New York Times, are alarmed.

Not everyone, though, is upset. Some folks, like this paleo diet guru, are just glad someone stuck it to Gawker.

But whoever you support, it’s worth asking if Thiel’s tactics should be legal if the first place. Think about what he did. He crawled into someone else’s lawsuit in order to squash a media outlet, and neither he nor Hogan had to tell anyone about it.

The Thiel-Hogan arrangement, if the reports are accurate, represents a new frontier in the murky corner of the legal system known as litigation finance. As my colleague Roger Parloff explained in a feature about a notorious lawsuit against Chevron, the practice normally involves investors underwriting a lawsuit in return for a cut of the proceeds.

This is different. It appears to be about a billionaire renting a lawsuit in order to destroy someone, possibly in retaliation for Gawker outing him in 2007.

As for why it’s legal, the answer lies in the long-term erosion of old common law rules that forbade “champerty and maintenance” or, in plain English, “funding someone else’s lawsuit to cause trouble or collect a cut.”

According to Stephen Scott, a constitutional law professor at McGill University, the common law rules prevented lawyers from working on contingency, which is what led many states to write statutes over-riding them.

“Most people regard the old laws as obsolete, archaic and oppressive,” said Scott, noting that bans on outside financing for lawsuits can keep people from seeking justice because they won’t be able to afford it.

But as the old rules are lifted, companies are turning lawsuit funding into big business. This might represent a chance for more people to get a fair shake in court but, as David Lat, a founder of legal blog Above the Law notes, it also raises ethical issues.

Perhaps, this could be solved by disclosure: Isn’t it in everyone’s interest to know when people like Thiel are behind a lawsuit? As it turns out, no one has to say a thing. According to Burford Capital, a litigation company whose clients include banks and hedge funds, the law is “perfectly clear … there is no obligation to disclose litigation financing arrangements.”

In a Twitter message, Lat noted that some lawyers will voluntarily disclose a financing arrangement, but agreed that there is no general obligation to disclose.

Defendants like Gawker, meanwhile, might try to use the legal discovery process to unearth hidden enemies, but it won’t work. The reason is because it is easy for plaintiffs to shut the door by invoking so-called privileges like “l(fā)awyer-client” or “attorney work product.”

So where does it all stop? Who knows. As it stands, Thiel has created a model where any thin-skinned billionaire can ruin a media company without even telling anyone. And it’s all perfectly legal.