But they've been brought down by a personal vendetta from one millionaire (Peter Thiel) who has been funding other people's lawsuits against Gawker for a while now, and eventually got one that's stuck and led to a serious judgement. The idea that one very wealthy person can take out a news organisation in such a fashion is certainly disconcerting.
Just a shame it wasn't Breitbart that he'd gone after.

While what you are saying is correct, it needs to be pointed out that the 'personal vendetta' started because Gawker decided to publish in public something that was essentially private and no business of anyone else. If they hadn't outed Thiel against his wishes - an action for which there is absolutely no public interest justification remember - then they'd probably still be in business no problem.

Theres ARE questions about the ability of the very rich to use the legal system to curtail criticism of actions they take which may go against the interests of society as a whole but this really isn't one of those cases. This is a basically a pretty simple example that if you pull a tiger's tail, you might then get eaten.

When it's a campaigner for say child labour law improvement who gets dumped on via a spurious lawsuit by a billionaire then we can talk. Much as the overuse of accusations of 'isms' devalue the real fight against prejudice, the sanctimonious claptrap about 'free speech' around this case devalue the campaign for actual freedom to criticise those in power around the world. 'Free speech' does not give you the right to violate people's privacy just to earn money through voyeuristic clicks.