The fact that people are applauding because it's someone they disagree with whose ox is getting gored is really disappointing for a community that espouses such strong freedom of speech principles.
I don't have any problem with deterrence - or "chilling effect", if you prefer to word it that way - on the latter.
It's unfortunate that it requires a millionaire to fund the court case to get us there; but the only cause for concern here is that someone else might see their privacy similarly violated, and not have a rich sponsor to pay the legal bills for personal reasons.
I think that is a very dangerous way to look at thing. The right to privacy is a limitation to freedom of speech. You might think that it's a reasonable limitation in this case, but it's still a limitation and not something different.
However, our legal system holds that even where we have freedom of expression, we still have a responsibility to not invade people's privacy, and not cause them emotional harm. A court found that Gawker didn't act according to those responsibilities, so they owed damages. That's exactly the kind of deterrence that our civil law is designed to provide.
"[...] an unusual decision Mr. Bollea’s legal team made: It purposely excluded a claim that would have allowed Gawker’s insurance company to help pay for its defense as well as damages."
That speaks quite loudly to the intent of the deterrent, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned who was paying, since insurance company money is just as green as Gawker's.
Publishing a sex tape is completely different than writing about it.
You can sue any time you want. That's how the US legal system works.
Peter Thiel isn't a government entity, but an individual. He by definition cannot do anything to restrict gawkers freedom of speech.
First, Peter Thiel used the court system, an arm of the government, to pursue a personal vendetta and suppress their speech.
Second, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government intervention, but freedom of speech is a concept that exists outside the U.S. Constitution.
I hope this clarifies things and helps you better understand the situation.
No, he merely helped others do so. Whether or not he had a personal vendetta does not affect the validity of the cases. And again, Peter Thiel has every right to do so. As he himself isn't an arm of the government.
>Second, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government intervention, but freedom of speech is a concept that exists outside the U.S. Constitution.
I just can't find a definition that agrees with you here, it seems to me that it's commonly accepted that freedom of speech is specifically about the right to communicate without fear of government interference.
It'd be rather ridiculous if wasn't, would any retaliation from a private person in response to speech be violating ones freedom of speech? Wouldn't that mean that if you insulted me and I responded in kind I'd effectively be suppressing your speech?
In any case, I'd appreciate it if you could find a source that supports your position. I'd be very interested to read it.