What's not okay is using one's own immense wealth to fund litigation against a media outlet you do not like over issues unrelated to the reason you dislike them. There's no question this tips the balance of power.
Mr. Thiel may have acted due to an alignment of selfish motivations, but he provided a public service, nonetheless. Both sides were adequately funded and the victim won on the merits of the case. Surely you're not suggesting it preferable that Gawker's sex crime go largely unpunished due to their victims being unable to afford a legal team of equal calibre?
Not at all, the cost of obtaining justice is the central issue here. If obtaining justice lies only with those with immense wealth, they can selectively choose to apply or not apply it, which is inherently unjust.
Agreed.
What a disingenuous load of nonsense.
If you film people having sex with their permission, then you are a pornographer and subject to certain restrictions as to how you may publish your works.
If you film people having sex WITHOUT their permission or knowledge and post the videos online then you are a criminal and, in a just world, a benefactor would come to the aid of your victims and finance whatever legal proceedings necessary to drive your operation out of business.
Crying "freedom of the press" to defend sex criminals is absolutely reprehensible, as was Gawker's behavior both in this case and its repeated outing of homosexuals.