>What Thiel did was to tell people with deep enough pockets to see that it's possible to destroy someone for writing articles that they disagree with
What Theil did was to show that to make sure justice is served when a rich entity is involved, at least an equally rich entity should be involved to make them pay for it.
You make it sound like Theil bribed someone or did something unethical. What he merely did was that he kept paying lawyers so that the lawyers being paid by Gawker could not get away digging for excuses and lengthening the case (usually, lengthening the case is way to make the opposition go bankrupt).
What Theil did was to show that to make sure justice is served when a rich entity is involved, at least an equally rich entity should be involved to make them pay for it.
You make it sound like Theil bribed someone or did something unethical. What he merely did was that he kept paying lawyers so that the lawyers being paid by Gawker could not get away digging for excuses and lengthening the case (usually, lengthening the case is way to make the opposition go bankrupt).