> wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do

> wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result. Probably part of it is because the judge agreed with Thiel's motivation. It was also appealed and thrown out of court. The fine was surely intended to bankrupt the company. Something judges do have the power to do. To be honest I don't think even Thiel thought Gawker would fuck up its own defense this badly. They were pressing all the wrong buttons. I'm sure you've heard how the trial went. > I don't think billionaires should be able to use money and the courts to shut down speech they don't like. In this specific court case the speech was outright illegal even before they defied a court order. In the general case that is up for a far ranging debate. My two cents are that it is extremely likely Gawker was/is working for a covert political organization (like how Salon* is also), as such it is a PR firm masquerading as journalism. The only question I have in my mind is whether Denton is aware of being co-opted. He must surely have realized something was up recently. I won't spell it out here but if you do some google searches you shall see some interesting things. If you are a popular media organization with a poor or non-existent profit stream but readily available capital from nowhere for many years then you might find yourself in a spot of political trouble. * From their wiki: Salon has been unprofitable through its entire history. Since 2007, the company has been dependent on ongoing cash injections from board Chairman John Warnock and William Hambrecht, father of former Salon CEO Elizabeth Hambrecht.