A media company biting the dust over poor business practices is one thing; going bankrupt because of a pissed off Silicon Valley venture capitalist acting out of revenge is entirely different and it should deeply alarm all of us.

I can understand why people object or are frustrated over ‘gossip-reports’ that invade someone’s privacy, be that Hulk Hogan’s sex tape or the outing of venture capitalist Peter Thiel and we all know that there have been plenty of those on Gawker. However, in no way does this justify the actions of a displeased billionaire, especially when they raise serious questions about free speech and the First Amendment.

Should Gawker and its authors and editors be criticized and even reprimanded in the event that they broke any laws? Absolutely, but that’s a long way from working behind the scenes to bring down an entire media outlet out of spite.

Silicon Valley’s Peter Thiel used his vast wealth to secretly fund and take advantage of the legal system for years through what The Guardian rightly describes as “puppet claimants to turn thumbscrews on reporters and media companies – doing so repeatedly, backing suit after suit: that is something which should terrify us all. Not just fans of Gawker. Not just journalists. All of us”.

As irritating and of poor taste as some articles from Gawker can be, the Paypal co-founder stooped to an even lower level, unethically backing an undisclosed number of cases against Gawker, and in the end, manipulated the legal system to have Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit heard in a Florida courthouse where the jury would be more likely to go against the website, after the case was thrown out by a federal court. Thiel’s involvement also meant that Hogan, who otherwise would have made a settlement on the $140 million verdict, had no incentive to back down, forcing the media outlet into bankruptcy.

I’d recommend you head over to The Guardian and read the entire article from Nicky Woolf who makes some very valid points, particularly in terms of how this can affect journalism in general:

“Journalism must work to earn back that trust; but in the meantime, Thiel’s revenge, executed with chilling precision like a comic-book villain in an ominous lair, should distress anyone with any interest in free speech. Because while it is Gawker today, it could be the New York Times, or the Guardian, or Breitbart, or the Daily Mail – or any of us – tomorrow. If the oligarchs of Silicon Valley feel empowered to sink outlets that they disagree with, our robot overlords will be here sooner than we think.”

I couldn’t agree more. Even if you dislike Gawker.com, which is only one of many sites that belong to the Gawker Media LLC group, it’s better to have the option to click past a distasteful story or even a website than to have websites and journalists working under the fear of repercussions from a rich individual or company. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall famously wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

While many people tend to focus on untasteful articles, the various sites under Gawker Media’s umbrella have also produced great content over the years (Wired has a Top 10 here), breaking stories like: the 2010 uncovering of the Apple iPhone 4 from Gizmodo, Jalopnik’s spot-on 2014 Corvette C7 in 2011, Gawker TKTK’s exposure of Buzzfeed’s “Advertiser-Friendly” approach and more recently, Gizmodo’s story on how Facebook routinely suppressed conservative news.

So it’s not all black and white folks and if anything, one of the greatest things that Gawker Media brought to the internet table is the notion that journalists, bloggers and news websites in general, don’t and shouldn’t have to play by some set rules to be successful and stand out from the crowd. As Politico’s Tom McGeveran writes:

“By getting under the skin of its competitors, Gawker forced other publications to ask themselves what rules they were playing by and why. After all, many of those stories we lost, we lost precisely because our standards were being manipulated by powerful people to shut down any possible criticism or exposure. In the process, Gawker showed many publications what it’s like to have some guts, what it’s like to be unafraid to stand up to power, and what a story in the 21st century looks like.”

Is this sense of journalistic independence something you want to see taken away from the web? I certainly wouldn’t.