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.
>First, Peter Thiel used the court system, an arm of the government, to pursue a personal vendetta and suppress their speech.
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.
Peter Thiel isn't a government entity, but an individual. He by definition cannot do anything to restrict gawkers freedom of speech.