The lack of rampant privacy violation lawsuits over the past 5 years is evidence in support of the theory that our freedom didn't depend on protecting that particular vicious scoundrel.

It's true that defending freedom often implies defending scoundrels. But it's a failure of logic to assume that we can't stop scoundrels, generally, if we want to protect freedom.

Gawker didn't just screw up. It was habitually irredeemably horrible. If there is to be any limit to conduct online at all it seemed inevitable that they'd eventually cross it.

We should be proud of our civilization that it was an orderly legal process that ended it, rather than a violent vigilante reprisal.