You’re the one who set up the dichotomy:

But did does not, however. Because since defamation is not relevant to this case, the notion of the harm to an individual is, likewise, not relevant here. But I’ll get to the rest of the meat of that subsequently. This was absolutely a chilling case. First amendment lawyers, even ones that hate gawker, would agree:

You’re assuming correctly. Also maybe you edited the first one, ‘cause it originally only said “whoosh”? We may strongly disagree on several of these points, but I suspect we may be able to agree that Kinja (at the very least, “at times”) sucks.

I assume you’re implying some point went over my head. Kinja’s weird, so I’m not sure if that’s your reply to the long post or the short one. If it’s the short one, I would say that what you’re missing is that defamation is different than the Bollea case—the analogy doesn’t hold. The harm to an individual is factored…

It apparently is for you, because truth is an absolute defense for defamation. Defamation is irrelevant in the Gawker case.

The alternative to what? The alternative to immorally abusing both the court system and juror ignorance? You’re setting up a dichotomy between that and allowing people to say true things?

Legal =/= moral. No one has raised a compelling moral argument justifying his actions. he certainly abused the principle of the legal system and juror ignorance in order to get an outcome he knew was not actually appropriate under the law, but that would be too ruinous to fight.

Well, it is NOW...the original troll reply was just a nigh - incoherent rant about an unrelated topic, with a complaint and invective about how everyone who writes for the site should be murdered and/or jobless (Or something else horrible, can’t recall the specifics) because they didnt cover a story he wanted them to…

Are we going with spam? I went with spam.

I actually talked to someone the other day who blamed THE MEDIA for shit like this, saying that if only it wasn’t REPORTED, there would be less unrest. The look on his face when I not only destroyed his “argument” but also defended that terrible awful no good word “privilege” in the process of demonstrating his…

Potassium Chloride! You can pick it up in the salt area, it’s usually the weird “No Salt” stuff for people on low sodium diets. Gatorade is NOT appropriate for an oral rehydration solution, because it doesn’t have much potassium, only salt and sugar. In a disaster, you need to keep your electrolytes up. Also just good…

Well, again, I don’t want to shit on you for the way you’re approaching it, but let me just respond a bit...

I dunno; I think the system is fucked up to the point it’s almost impossible to be legitimate, except technically. And while I think he gamed that system, that in itself wouldn’t necessarily make him “illegitimate” for me if I were answering a survey.

I feel as though you don’t know what a bluff is. The Democrats were not bluffing; their proposed candidate WAS better by every meaningful metric than Cheetolini. Refusal to acknowledge that is not a proper game theory choice.

I’m a paramedic in southern CA. Nobody out here drinks enough water. Less kids, because kids are resilient, but the number of adults who haven’t had any water all day while they’ve been in the heat, then call 911 wondering why they feel faint is astonishing.

I’ve seen that Luke is refusing to release the third album, essentially blocking her entirely...wouldn’t that be a better grounds for a lawsuit? Don’t get me wrong, it should be the case that his behavior, if true (and I’d bet money, large sums, that it is), should justify an exit. But I feel like “He’s petulantly…

You know, until I saw it I didn’t really “get” the criticism. I mean, understood it, but seeing the piece makes me actually get it, especially the bowl of fruit comment.

I like SCROTUS...so called ruler of the United States.

This article is wildly disingenuous, depending on what’s really being talked about here. Because it’s using one example of an UNcommon event, against a huge social problem.

This is an interesting, legit nuanced take. Doesn’t belong on the Internet! (I kid. Thanks for writing this)