The same lawyer who won Gawker threatened the New York Times to not publish their stories about Harvey Weinstein's rapes,

- "Weinstein's attorney Charles Harder, who was then known for filing the suit that bankrupted Gawker, said his client would be suing The New York Times,[140] but by October 15, 2017, Harder was no longer working for Weinstein.[141]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_...

There were multiple other news companies (not including the Times) that were successfully dissuaded from publishing anything about the Weinstein accusations, by his litigation threats.

> Not just small newsrooms; Gawker was plenty big.

Yes. It was maddening seeing news orgs everywhere yawn at this process. It was an obvious proving ground event - and today is being more widely deployed.

Gawker flouted the law.

They were publicly sharing an intimate video of Hogan without his consent, he got a court order telling them to stop and they just refused to obey it, stating that they had a first amendment right to do it. Except, Gawker got the constitution wrong - and apparently didn't even ask a lawyer before refusing to obey the order -, which is why the later law against sharing intimate videos without consent is uncontroversial

Hogan was in the top 1% and even he couldn't afford justice when a large media organisation committed a blatant violation of his rights. His need for Thiel's support isn't an example of oppression of those organisations, it's an example of their power.

None of that lines up very well with the summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker, and they couldn't afford an appeal (as they'd have to put up a $50M bond to do so). All this after a Federal court supported their assertions of fair use and First Amendment protections; Hogan then took it to a Florida state court instead.