Ideally all cases would be decided on their merits irrespective of funding. But if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped?

What is frightening about Thiel’s involvement case is the playbook: destroy media companies that have been critical or embarrassed you, by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous.

> if Hogan had lost, do you think Thiel would have stopped?

Maybe. Thiel funded the destruction of Gawker for their crime against Hogan. He probably wouldn't've funded it if he hadn't had a personal grudge against Gawker, sure, but Hogan's lawsuit was entirely legitimate. If there hadn't been a legitimate lawsuit against Gawker, only illegitimate ones, would Thiel have funded those? We really can't say.

> by secretly funding any and all lawsuits against them, even if frivolous.

Did he actually do this? (all and any, even if frivolous)

If he extracts his revenge by helping people that legitimately believe that they had their rights trampled seek justice, is it not a net benefit to society regardless of his personal motives?

In my ideal society, lawyers wouldn't cost and arm and a leg or at least government would make sure individuals could sue corporations if there's a solid case.

Essentially, the bigger issue here is that Gawker could hide behind a bunch of lawyers even when they knew they were doing something despicable. Take that away, and things get fairer pretty quickly.

Sounds shiny. How would government determine if there’s a solid case? Some kind of formal hearing?