Print and Internet media are not amused. As the story blew up today, headlines and tweets like the following, abounded:
- Get ready for a serious chilling effect if billionaire funders begin bankrolling cases against media companies
- "Thiel’s tactics in going after Gawker are very, very frightening for anybody who believes in freedom of speech"
- The First Amendment exists precisely to stop people like Peter Thiel
- Secretly taking out a website because it was mean to you is "philanthropy."
- Thiel is a Trump supporter. He seems to be doing exactly what Trump has said he wishes he could do more w/ the media
- Wow. Peter Thiel didn’t look for lawsuits to fund, he funded lawyers to look for Gawker victims to file lawsuits.
At least, reprehensible as it may have been, Thiel's revenge was within the law. Which brings us to Dilbert Creator Scott Adams' blog post about the Thiel revelation:
Adams' sinister innuendo doesn't specify legal or illegal means, which is one of the intimidating advantages of making vague threats, isn't it?
Adams, who frequently lauds Donald Trump though he said in 2015 he wouldn't "endorse" anyone this election, had more to say about making the world a better place by doing whatever he could to "destroy" publications (Salon, Huffpo and Gawker) that he thinks wronged him.
Here's Keith Olberman ridiculing Thiel's tax evasion scheme, "seasteading," a few years ago.