Is Peter Thiel a hero or a villain?

If you haven’t heard yet, the Silicon Valley billionaire has been backing the Hulk Hogan lawsuit against Gawker media, who published a sex tape of Hulk and a friend’s wife. The former professional wrestler won in March and was awarded $140 million. And last Wednesday, a Florida judge upheld the verdict and the heavy payout.

Now, why did Thiel embark on this revenge? Because Gawker, in a 2007 article, revealed that Thiel was "totally gay, people." Though this was known to people close to Thiel, the article was a widespread outing. This is nothing new from Gawker. The media giant has done things from outing people to showing sex tapes, including a video of a possible rape.

So is Thiel a hero or a villain?

Not according to other journalists. Their arguments fall into two categories:

"MUH FIRST AMENDMENT!!!"

After the reveal that Thiel was the mysterious Hulk patron, journalists from Forbes to Slate to The Guardian have been clutching pearls about what this means. They fear that this will lead to a slippery slope to billionaires and corporations silencing their First Amendment rights through litigation.

First of all, as a journalist, I am responsible for everything I write. I put my work out there and it is up to the reader, whether or not they agree, to react as they see fit. These writers want to be able to say whatever they want (no matter how offensive or evil) and escape any bad reaction. But that's not how it works. It doesn't matter if you write for Odyssey or Gawker or The New York Times. You are on the hook for what you write.

And Gawker has a complete lack of self awareness. Gawker released a man's email because he wrote less than flattering things about Gawker. Talk about billionaires and corporations silencing First Amendment rights. Pot, meet kettle.

"HOW DARE YOU BE ASHAMED ABOUT BEING GAY?"

Another argument is that Thiel should not be mad about being outed because its for the greater good of the LGBTQ community. According to David Lat's at the Washington Post, "There's nothing shameful about being gay. The furor over outing implies there is." And Chris Bull from Queerty praises the outing, saying "Even if the story were to be considered an “outing,” the motive was hardly malicious. In Thiel’s case, who would not want a brilliant entrepreneur and billionaire to be part of our team, one who could make a difference to young people struggling in their own closets?"

Okay guys, three things. First of all, in my honest opinion, there is nothing shameful about being gay. Unfortunately, there are people out there who do believe is it not only shameful, but evil. Westboro Baptist Church, ISIS, The KKK: all of these groups believe that its really bad to be gay. So I can sympathize that a man worried about his safety would be reluctant to admit he likes gay sex.

Secondly, Chris Bull is right. Having an openly gay billionaire would be a great influence for young people who don't want to be out of the closet. However, Queerty or Gawker or anyone else don't get to decide who is out or in the closet. It is not your job to decide how open someone is about their sexuality. People close to Thiel knew it, but that doesn't mean everyone should or has to know.

Which leads to my final point; the issues at hand are more important than being gay. Thiel's "homosexuality" is a Macguffin. Replace "homosexuality" with anything else people might not want to reveal (alcoholism, drugs, gambling, kinky sex) and we have the same story. If a person has a secret that they do not want revealed on a large scale, they should be able to keep it a secret.

So at the end of the day, Peter Thiel is a hero. Gawker has grown complacent. They have become so big, they aren't afraid of the results of their actions. But that's about to change. Companies like Gawker need to learn that they are not immune from bad ramifications.

And the harder the hit they can take, the better.