Techdirt basically did that in the Ayyadurai email case, but still suffered financially.
I didn’t shed a tear about Gawker’s demise. But the fact that a rich man can sue a media outlet into oblivion, and create an ecosystem of fear and intimidation journalists and sources now have to navigate as a result, is what Masters is speaking of when she uses the term.
If anything, the most problematic part of the story for me, is that Hulk Hogan had to get the backing of a billionaire in order to carry this case to completion. Hogan is a (or was a) celebrity, likely a millionaire, and he couldn't use our court system to press a suite when he had a real case. We seem to be on the exact other extreme of what you are afraid of - typical people, even 1% types, or "Single digit millionaires" as I've heard Thiel say, can't afford to use our legal system. Gawker and the ilk are free from legal challenge except in the case of litigious billionaires looking for revenge.
If I were a news outlet, I'd publish a vetted credible story if it has real news value, defend it with a minimum of legal power, and if a judge ordered me to take it down, I would. This way, the story goes out and we avoid the legal death blow Gawker begged for.