So Gawker exercised free speech and he was allowed to tag along in an unrelated lawsuit. That sounds like a big loophole in the system. Say what you will about these "smut peddlers" like Gawker but that is an attack on free speech. I amazed more folks in the comments aren't upset about the constitution being perverted in such a way.
If it's a loophole they created it, with a big neon sign saying "please put us out of business".
Would it make you feel any better if Hogan never got his day in court because he didn't have the money? Gawker was using their warchest to avoid litigation for completely legitimate lawsuits -- no matter how you feel about Thiel they got what was coming to them.
What precedent is that? That if you skirt the law somebody might do something about it? That having a good legal team does not give you freedom from your legal responsibilities as a media outlet?
