> Do you not trust the court system to preserve free speech? Bankrolling a plaintiff going up against a financially inferior defendant means that the plaintiff

> Do you not trust the court system to preserve free speech? Bankrolling a plaintiff going up against a financially inferior defendant means that the plaintiff's argument may be framed more convincingly than the defendant's. And, not to put too fine a point on it, the jury opted to imperil Gawker's free speech; juries are even more susceptible to impassioned pleas to "think about the real victim" than a judge. The main issue for me is that Thiel opted to use another case to exact his revenge against a media company, rather than his own. He made Hogan the instrument for his revenge. Sure, Gawker is a pox, but its right to be a pox should be defended with the same fervor with which Thiel's vengeance was exacted. It wasn't. It couldn't have been. That's why it's generally seen as a bad thing when someone an order of magnitude (or more) more wealthy than a defendant puts their money behind a plaintiff when the case isn't about the financier to begin with. I see why Thiel is a self-styled privacy champion - the crux of his revenge scheme, after all, is that his privacy was violated. But, to me, it seems like a hypocritical assertion; why didn't he take Gawker down for violating his privacy? Did he not think a jury would be enamored enough with him? The case stinks all over. It's bad for everyone involved. Thiel loses credibility as a champion of privacy, Gawker is on its way out, and Hulk Hogan's own private escapades were paraded out to the public. The whole mess is toxic.