No, he didn't. Gawker died on its own merits; in an alternative world where Gawker continued to flaunt the law because someone couldn't afford to fund a lawsuit, I'm OK with this outcome. Not to mention, Gawker did themselves absolutely no favors, from ignoring a federal judge to flippantly answering questions under oath, they garnered no pity from me.
But it's important to remember that the judgement was only the death blow -- defending the lawsuit was what gave them a slow death. Even if Gawker was right and won, they still would have died.
Just-world fallacy. If I had an axe to grind with you and had unlimited funds - how many of your negative interactions with (contractors|coworkers|neighbours|acquaintances) in the past couple of years could be escalated to financial ruin? If you survive the first suit, how many more could you stomach before declaring bankruptcy?
By accident or design, the fact that legal action is expensive acts as a brake on suits without much merit (to a degree).
Hogan got an injunction to take down the sex tape and Gawkers response was an article titled "A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post. We Won't."
They sealed their own fates with their muckraking tabloidism.
[1] http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
If that suit didn't happen, would reddit been as fast to stop the "fappening" exchange on their website?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_phot...
At least if you are a celebrity with deep pockets you have a good chance of getting your leaked photos wiped.
You're out of luck however if you are just an ordinary person, and partner uploaded your pictures to some "amateur" website as "revenge porn".
It was defending the suit, whether right or wrong, that killed them. The judgement was just the death blow.
Would you feel the same way if the suit had been against a more reputable organization like the New York Times?
Number 2, the New York Times would be much wiser in how they interacted with the courts than Gawker was.
Number 3, people do sue the New York Times. The New York Times pays the legal costs, and keeps publishing.
Do you really think that a billionaire can bankrupt the New York Times with a lawsuit? I'm pretty sure they can't...
What he basically did was say, "don't ever print anything negative about a billionaire because they can take down your entire business". So now if a billionaire really does do something newsworthy and negative, places like the New York Times might think twice about publishing that story, for fear of the cost of defending a billionaire's lawsuit.
That's why people dislike him (other than his Trump support, although to be fair I haven't heard anything about him supporting Trump anymore).