Just because they published things that have been good journalism allows them carte blanche to publish things that break the law and are morally reprehensible? I find this logic baffling.

I find the logic that freedom of speech only applies to journalism you agree with baffling.

It's straight out of the 21st century authoritarians playbook - nobody is dumb enough to admit that their actions are against the principles of freedom, but people are dumb enough to agree with those same actions when you simply redefine who those principles apply to.

It's the new-newspeak, see how Putin has as much power as any Soviet leader but with the veneer of democracy, popular support and individual freedom.

Just to be clear, the freedom of speech is not absolute. It _is_ possible to violate someone else's First Amendment rights while exercising your own, to the point where a judge or jury must decide who is at fault (if anyone) and why. The limits to free speech have been shaped over time by laws and by precedent. In this case, a jury found that Gawker went too far.

I was directly replying to the comment that "They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose." Actually reading the context would make the logic much less baffling.

Okay, your argument then seems to be "They do have a moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose some of the time but the rest of the time they break the law". That's not much improvement, I would think.

I don't feel like you're really trying to engage critically here.

The feeling is mutual, sir.

the sex tape was reprehensible but outing? Aren't we like ten to twenty years past that point? Its not really different than the press publishing cheating stories these days.

> Aren't we like ten ... years past that point?

Not actually debating the merits of outing a public figure, but regarding your timeline, this was 2007, or 9 years ago, so it's possible that no, we were not past "that point" at that point. However you are defining that point.

How many of these were things Gawker originally sourced and how many of them were things that they quoted a few paragraphs and added a snarky/self-righteous sentence or two to?

Quick check: is there an answer to this question that would change your mind? If so, what is it?

Change my mind on what?

> It's not so cut and dry, which is why people are rightfully worried about a billionaire's personal vendetta to destroy a press organization?

He can't do a single thing to them unless they break the law.

I thought I'd look those up to see who got the scoop.

Hillary Clinton’s secret email account: New York Times Bill Cosby’s history with women: National Enquirer The mayor of Toronto as a crack smoker: Gawker Tom Cruise’s role within Scientology: Gawker N.F.L. cover-up of domestic abuse: ESPN Hidden power of Facebook to determine the news: Gawker

In the absence of a regulator, something needs to keep the 'press' in check.