I've looked at the facts of the case, and it seems clear to me that Gawker was guilty of an invasion of privacy, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Can you give me an argument, based on the facts of the case, that Gawker did not commit those violations?
I know. That's my point. Not only that, the appeals court ruled in favor of gawkers.
> but people also have the right to judge you for that.
Sure...
>You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial.
No I'm not. I actually addressed it.
> They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value."
No. That's not why they lost. Trials are FICKLE.
> On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.
What does this have to do with "revenge porn"?