Because I am free speech absolutist which means defending speech that I don't like.

There were other ways to nail gawker - copyright infringement comes to mind.

Gawker was allowed to say whatever they wanted about the sex tape. No one has ever questioned that. They were not allowed to publish it. That is what they were sued over. I'm pretty absolutionist about free speech myself, which is why it's pretty disappointing that a lot of people are missing this key point.

Exactly. The story and "news" surrounding this incident still exists without publication of the stolen video. Coverage without the video does not deliver as many clicks so they rolled the dice with that one and have so far lost.

I don't understand how a free speech absolutist supports a copyright-based retribution approach. "Absolutist" may not mean what you think it means.

So you believe that publishing private citizen's sex tapes falls under free speech? That outing others as gay falls under free speech?

Yes. Despicable but still free.

I absolutely cannot agree with that.