[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?