I think the precedent OP is concerned about is not about Hogan specifically. Thiel probably doesn't give a shit about Hogan's sex tape. He probably dislikes Gaw

I think the precedent OP is concerned about is not about Hogan specifically. Thiel probably doesn't give a shit about Hogan's sex tape. He probably dislikes Gawker for other reasons (maybe general tone or content, or maybe something specific in a particular article by one of Gawker's subproperties; who knows?), but he took advantage of the opportunity the Hogan case provided to eliminate a media outlet. The problem is that any media outlet, if they've been around long enough, has probably published something you could convince a jury was slanderous or libelous or defamatory or whatever. So the precedent I think OP is concerned about is: if you're a rich person and you don't like something a media outlet writes about you or your startup or your pet issue of the week or whatever, it's now been proven effective for you to troll through that publisher's history in search of something juicy to pay someone to sue over, and use it to take that entire company out of the water, forever, even if the thing you're suing over has nothing to do with the thing you found objectionable in the first place, which may be perfectly journalistically legitimate and legal. Or, concretely: who's going to want to write anything nasty about Peter Thiel or his interests now, since he's proven a willingness to go to great lengths to find dirt to kill companies?