> A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately.

Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spycams in public bathrooms?

So we destroy an entire news outlet conglomeration?

That strikes me as overreach. There's clearly a privacy question here, but the video is real, the words are real, and the events actually happened.

I've never seen the video. I don't care. Hogan's sex life is not interesting to me. People already masterbate to him.

I'm struggling to understand how a large amount of damage was dealt.

They weren't destroyed because they did it. It happened because after the fact they refused to admit their fault and make up for it, and instead continued insisting they were in the right.

> I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo.

Isn't the alternative that every journalistic publication is above the law? If it were/is a free speech issue, then presumably it will be overturned on appeal?

I expect [1] to be overturned. Courts have pushed back against [2] every time it comes up.

Strawman. Nobody is suggesting this is illegal. But you should get your arse sued off civilly if you do this.