I struggle to understand how they could possibly have not met that standard?

From their "we're not going to take down the article, only the video" post, linked elsewhere:

> the Hon. Pamela A.M. Campbell, a circuit court judge in Pinellas County, Fla., issued an order compelling Gawker to remove from the internet a video of Hulk Hogan fucking his friend's ex-wife, as well as a 1,400-word narrative of the video written by former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio and 466 user-submitted comments

(my emphasis)

So, they did publish an article saying Hulk Hogan had sex with the person in the tape, and substantiated it with an excerpt of the tape.

They posted the video and didn't take it down when ordered by a judge.

What are you talking about? They did take down the video when ordered by a judge. They refused to take down the accompanying 1400-word article.

http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...

> Despite her misapprehension that the issue at hand was "only about the tape," Campbell has seen clear to order us to disappear a 1,400-word article—words composed and published by Gawker Media editorial employees—simply because Hulk Hogan didn't like it.

> A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal.

> But the portion of the order compelling us to remove the entirety of Daulerio's post—his words, his speech—is grossly unconstitutional. We won't take it down.