[r0h1n]

It's unethical because (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge, (b) he appears to be behind the decision to drop a certain charge from the lawsuit only so that Gawker wouldn't have insurance cover - it shows vindictiveness, (c) Thiel's goal seems to be to bankrupt and shut down Gawker.

Most of all, if this was indeed above board and ethical, why did Thiel feel the need to do this surreptitiously until outed by the NYT (is he going to fund someone to sue them too?).

[cjbprime]

> (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge

That would be unethical if the case were frivolous, or designed to bankrupt Gawker through "court fees" defending themselves against unreasonable complaints, or so on.

Gawker's going bankrupt, if they do, because they lost the case, for what I think were correct reasons. It can not be unethical to help someone get justice they were owed. If there are more cases like this one, I hope the plaintiffs win those cases too.

[rm_-rf_slash]

Would Gawker go bankrupt if the damages were set at $10 million? What about $20 million? $100 million? Why not $1 billion.

Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair?

Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would you keep true to your word that you hope more cases like this happen and that the plaintiffs win those cases too?

[cjbprime]

> Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair?

Yes, it is. Much of the damages were economic. He lost his job with WWE due to Gawker's publication. That's how much his job was paying him. It is a good thing that people can get economic damages from courts, even if they are rich. (Though it would be much better if everyone could receive the same level of justice as Hogan did, regardless of how rich they are.)

> Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would you keep true to your word that you hope more cases like this happen and that the plaintiffs win those cases too?

I'm so confused by this argument. The reason I hope more people in Hogan's situation win their cases is that I think the jury verdict was correct, and achieved justice for him, as it would for them too.

I expect I would be personally unhappy about losing millions, as anyone would. But it would only be wrong if it was for an unjust reason. That's not the case here. There is no hypocrisy in wanting just cases to succeed and unjust cases to fail.

[MisterBastahrd]

Wealthy people tend to have a lot of income. He lost a lot of income due to Gawker. Yes, it's just and fair. Bollea was making millions and millions a year in roles and endorsements, and that dried up after Gawker went after him. Gawker makes millions too. What Gawker did in the Bollea case has nothing to do with journalism. They wanted to create a sensationalist tabloid story with stolen footage of a private and embarrassing encounter to make money. Like any business endeavor, there's the possibility that you lose money. When you're a non-essential business that costs someone millions, be expected to pay millions.