[argonaut]

The reason many people don't think there is a better way is because this case involves two opposing forces of the same principle, free speech.

On one hand, media outlets should ideally feel un-intimidated in publishing stories. On the other hand, people should be allowed to support causes with money. Both are widely considered in America to fall under freedom of speech. So it's balancing act. There is no optimal solution, there are only tradeoffs.

This is also ignoring the facts that are highly favorable to Thiel's case: what Gawker did really was illegal and reprehensible, and also let us ignore the fact that Peter Thiel really did not bury Gawker under a mountain of legal fees - the verdict is what did Gawker in, not the legal fees which I'm sure are less than $10 million (Gawker can afford that)