[zedadex]

> Thiel destroyed a news company out of spite.

Thiel enabled something which should have destroyed them but was unlikely to (because of one of the stupidest reasons to not uphold the law, "because one side doesn't have the funds") to actually destroy them.

Gawker pretty much brought it upon themselves expecting to get away with it (see their disorganized deposition where one of the plaintiffs was actually laughing at questions).

While I'm wary of letting money have any more influence over the courts, this could be seen as a way for it to actually have less influence - the situation of "A is right but can't fund their case."

The worst you could do with this situation with billions to spare would be to try and fund a side "in the wrong" to help someone get away with something, but if the case against them is that strong all the funded legal maneuvering shouldn't allow them to 'get away clean'... Though perhaps 'shouldn't' should be the operative word there.