Keep in mind that while many people would agree with you that Gawker is scum, various communities take offense and find tasteless all sorts of other things.
Freedom is either near absolute or useless.
If Gawker goes bankrupt, it won't be because they're horrible people, it will be because they overstepped the bounds of the law.
Bollea may well have had a valid case against Gawker, but we'll never know. The idea that a case with a side funded by a vengeful billionaire could be fairly decided in our court system is absurd.
That money's not gonna conjure up evidence from the luminiferous aether.
Hogan is a famous, well-liked millionaire[0] already. And he almost certainly doesn't like Gawker.
So maybe he thought, "I can give up some of these millions and these parasites will not publish another damned lie again". In return, he also gets the eternal gratitude of people who hate Gawker (all decent human beings).
Seems like his actions align quite well with his interests.
Your own link says he is no longer a millionaire. He changed from financial motivations to moral superiority after the investment of someone who wants to destroy Gawker (not that Hogan might not also want that)... reducing your ability to receive damages doesn't seem to align to me as well as it does to you.
Me, I'd take that cut.
As Thiel himself said, "even someone like Terry Bollea who is a millionaire and famous and a successful person didn’t quite have the resources to do this alone."
Thiel also said that, but for his involvement the plaintiffs would have accepted a pittance. The outcome is largely a consequence of an the intervention of an outside party, not merely the merits of the case itself.
I think it's a moot point, since both Thiel and Denton have enough money that throwing more money at lawyers would do practically no good. Yes, people with more resources win more lawsuits, but there are diminishing returns.
It was directly related his reason for disliking them. In fact, it was practically the same reason.
> and apparently influenced the process of that lawsuit with the aim of destroying Gawker to the detriment of Bollea
How so? Bollea was already a millionaire; he didn't need the money, and he wasn't materially damaged in any case. He wasn't going after Gawker for the payout; he wanted to see them punished for what they did to him, and dissuaded from doing it to anyone else. This outcome serves his interests much better than a bit of extra money would.
Am I grossly misunderstanding this case?
The concern is that this is a generic strategy for destroying any media org you dislike. Simply locate and fund any and all lawsuits, forever. Any critical story could be libel. Any publishing of secrets could be an invasion of privacy. A weak case can be pumped up with enough money. Eventually the billionaire wins the war of attrition.
This is not hypothetical. Mother Jones was similarly attacked for publishing Mitt Romney's 47% comments. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander...
This is the very definition of a chilling effect on free speech!
It's also important to point out that Thiel is not manufacturing bogus cases to try and overwhelm a company with lawsuits. He's trying to find legitimate victims of Gawker and fund their lawsuits. These aren't frivolous claims, they're merely claims that the victims may not have been able to afford to file otherwise.
The post I was responding to was advocating apparently limitless free speech, though. Chilling effects SHOULD apply to certain things, and unapproved pornography of yourself maybe should be one of those?
Limitless speech but limited recourse isn't worth advocating, IMO.
Edit: Actually, "free speech" arguably includes the funding of private litigation.
(Goebbels and Stalin is a bit too hyperbolic, I think. Maybe try and scale it down -- say, Joe McCarthy.)
I love liberty as much as the next guy, but libertarianism all too often seems to mean the liberty of the guy with money and power to mess with the little guy.
Seems a little weird that a self-professed libertarian like Thiel aligns with Trump, noted authoritarian who's not above calling for violence against those who disagree with him, wants to go after Jeff Bezos and Amazon because he doesn't like what the Washington Post says, calls the CNN control room to tell them what to cover, while at the same time threatening to cancel CNN's 'FCC license' and take them off the air.
Personally, if a boot is stomping on my face I'm not that concerned with whether it's a private boot or a public boot. I'm not cool with government telling the press what to print, and I'm not cool with large capital pools going on secret vendettas against media that doesn't do what they want, and making sure they get sued on any completely unrelated thing that comes up where they might be vulnerable.
Parent was quoting Noam Chomsky
Citation/argument needed
If Gawker counts as part of "the free press" -- the people Americans trust with the privilege of mediating their access to much information -- then yes, "the press" deserves whatever it gets.