[stg22]

Gawker flouted the law.

They were publicly sharing an intimate video of Hogan without his consent, he got a court order telling them to stop and they just refused to obey it, stating that they had a first amendment right to do it. Except, Gawker got the constitution wrong - and apparently didn't even ask a lawyer before refusing to obey the order -, which is why the later law against sharing intimate videos without consent is uncontroversial

Hogan was in the top 1% and even he couldn't afford justice when a large media organisation committed a blatant violation of his rights. His need for Thiel's support isn't an example of oppression of those organisations, it's an example of their power.

[ceejayoz]

None of that lines up very well with the summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker, and they couldn't afford an appeal (as they'd have to put up a $50M bond to do so). All this after a Federal court supported their assertions of fair use and First Amendment protections; Hogan then took it to a Florida state court instead.