[bitinn]

What I think: Thiel saw an opening in both Gawker's reputation and the legal system, and made a deadly move.

And to clarify, I am not equating this case to censorship, but rather to setup some context that we have seen much worse :)

But what troubles me is really how SV response to this case:

- There are no better ways and so be it.

This is what Chinese call: the limit of democracy and freedom.

And Thiel get VCs to agree with him in this case. Even though I believe many VCs hold different view on democracy and liberty.

So I am personally troubled by their reactions.

[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)