> but I still worry that next time...

People are acting like their is no thought put into these type of court cases. This isn't a universal precedent that applies to every situation. It doesn't prevent any journalist from pursuing legitimate news stories and invading privacy along the way. It only prevents journalist from invading someone's privacy where the only story is the invasion itself.

Huh? That's not true at all.

A billionaire could fund cases against a media company entirely irrespective of the merit of those cases - the media company would still be forced to pay the legal fees associated with defending themselves, even if it's as simple as just getting it thrown out of court. Do it enough times and you've bankrupted the company.

For an example, Mother Jones was brought to the brink of bankruptcy for reporting an entirely true and legitimate story:

http://m.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersl...

Well run media companies have insurance for this type of thing. When Mother Jones lists the cost of that lawsuit, they combined both the costs they paid with the costs the insurance company paid for a total of $2.5 million. You need to separate those two costs out if you want to prove the Mother Jones was legitimately on the brink of bankruptcy due to the lawsuit. Otherwise it just appears to be an insurance company doing the job they are paid to do.

> Well run media companies have insurance for this type of thing

It looks like you haven't been paying close attention to the Gawker suite: Gawker also had insurance, but Bollea strategically dropped a charge that would have let Gawker claim against insurance (and at the same time reducing the total amount he would receive). This suite isn't about damages: it's about bankrupting Gawker for better or for worse. There's nothing that suggests a similar strategy can't be employed against Mother Jones.

I have been following the Gawker case and if the prosecutors can adjust the case in such a way to avoid insurance it tells me that either Gawker didn't have the right kind of insurance or that the insurance company found Gawker liable in such a way that they lost the right to coverage. Either way, that is a Gawker problem and not a problem of legal precedent.

Even still, it's $650k out of Mother Jones's pocket. Unless you're Buzzfeed or a TV network, that's more than any media organisation can easily swallow.

Plus Gawker's case was specifically structured to avoid an insurance payout. A blueprint for others in the future.

> the media company would still be forced to pay the legal fees associated with defending themselves

That's obviously a big problem. I have never understood why America insists on a dogmatic principle that inherently and unavoidably gives a vast advantage to well-off parties over poor parties. You can get away with a lot of vexatious litigation before the courts (a) notice it and (b) actually act upon it.

There is no problem with the next thing. You can report about the sex tape, what is happening (because what was happening is also reprehensible) without releasing the tape itself. You know, they reported on Snowden's leaks and Panama Papers without releasing them. It's not impossible by any means.

I think it ensures that journalists will be reticent to violate the privacy of powerful, public figures... If it's on a sex tape.