"In the public interest" != "what the public is interested in".
Hence news interest in that area. It's distasteful but I prefer the 1A protect as much as possible before the govt or courts tries to narrow it down.
You are not allowed to say harmful or malicious things about another person that has the potential to cause damage to their reputation.
So no, this is not a textbook example of defamation.
You're also confused about the scope of the 1st amendment. It applies in civil cases. I'm not sure why you would think it doesn't. See, for example Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell for a famous example. The trial was a central plot point in a major motion picture!
Bringing up the Falwell vs. Flynt was more about protecting parody. Very few people would have taken seriously the idea that Falwell would run an ad in Hustler magazine, it was clearly satire. In this case, however, the information was recorded without the other's party's notice. I'd have to look up the laws in California, but I know in NYS, we have to inform the other party when we are recording are the conversation. In this case, it's the right to privacy vs. freedom of speech. The argument that since a person is a celebrity he does not have privscy rights never made sense. He is entitled to his privacy as much as the rest of us.
"The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS."
I was merely pointing out that this statement is wrong. The 1st amendment does protect defendants in civil trials. In this case it was found (rightly or wrongly) that Hulk's right to privacy outweighed Gawker's freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the 1st didn't apply at all. It simply means it lost this time.
It doesn't even mean that celebrity's rights to privacy will always outweigh freedom of speech. I'm sure that TMZ prints stuff every single day that celebrities would prefer to remain private and you don't see them losing lawsuits very often.
This was a very particular case right on the edge of the line. And, by the way, it will certainly be appealed and Gawker could very well win in a higher court.
1. Snowden didn't reveal somebody's private information, but information about the abuses of a government agency.
2. There's a compelling public interest in making sure government agencies don't abuse their power. Not so with private sex tapes.
The United States has different classifications of laws: criminal and civil. Snowden's case is considered criminal. He was also reporting on massive civil violations the US was (and is committing) against people. That definitely is a free speech case.
Hulk vs Gawker is a civil case. Libel and slander are not protected.
It's the "compelling news interest" so I think it falls under the First Amendment for Gawker.
I wouldn't be surprised it'll be overturned on appeal.
But Florida does require a bond to be put up and it's significant. This might hamstring Gawker while they go through the appeals process.