There's a very fine line to be drawn. I think it boils down to a conflict of interest and hence Thiel shouldn't have been involved in the legal process at all.

There's a very fine line to be drawn. I think it boils down to a conflict of interest and hence Thiel shouldn't have been involved in the legal process at all. That's the unethical element about it (to me). I think it's also about transparency. Thiel should have been front and centre during the legal process and open about his involvement instead of manipulating from the background. Now, Thiel has not only undermined his own reputation (would you want to deal with a man who, if you got on the wrong side of him, might use considerable economic might to bring you down?) and the reputation of the legal system (now perceived to be a football game for billionaires). You can argue day and night whether or not this is ethical or unethical, or how important the original legal cases were. However, Thiels' approach failed the smell test (to me) and has done more overall harm than good in the cold light of day ... just so one man could have a "fuck you" moment in the sunshine. Disclaimer: if half of the things written about Gawker are true, I'm obviously not in their camp. It's possible to criticize both for different reasons.