The JURY don't have any powers without THE JUDGE, whose ratification of the decision the jury made is the only means by which the law finds force in society. Without the Judiciary, no Jury. That's how the law works.
Gawker gambled on their ability to stay in business while also committing vile acts of hatred using their right to free speech. They lost the gamble. They weren't told "you can't have free speech" - they were told "you caused this amount of damage, by exercising your rights" - and it was Gawker themselves who decided they could not take responsibility for that damage, so they shuttered themselves.
Gawker lost because they flaunted the law, and in spite of having a court order to cease their attacks on an individual, continued regardless. TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES did not flaunt the law, nor were they required to - as they were not the targets of the suit.
"You are anti-free speech": No, you are simply wrong. I'm pro-free speech. I just don't think that its the golden get-out-of-jail card that you think it should be. There are other rights granted us by society; when one set of rights is used to impinge upon another, that is a case for the legal system to administer. You are yet to demonstrate an understanding of this fact: You can say what you want, but if it causes me harm, I also can say what I want - and when a multi-million dollar company goes up against an individual, I'm very glad of the fact that these rights are adjudicated in court.
No. They went out of business because they ran out of money to continue their legal defense.
> and the judge agreed with the plaintiff that they should pay damages.
No. Not the judge. The JURY.
> Instead of paying those damages, the people behind Gawker decided - using their own free will - that they would be better off shuttering the site.
They could have continue with the legal proceedings but they didn't have the funds.
> None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up.
Really? TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES published segments of the sex tape. TMZ and those sites are still around.
I already provided PROOF. You can repeat the same thing over and over again. It isn't going to magically turn true.
>but such is life in the free world.
Not in a free world. In a billionaire's world.
> the system is there for both sides of the coin.
Apparently, it's for the billionaire's.
Using your logic, TMZ and most of the sites would be out of business. After all, they published the sex tape images LONG BEFORE gawker. Okay?
You can spin it anyway you like. You are anti-free speech advocate.