"I know for a fact that Penthouse published screen shots from the Tonya Harding tape"

And Peter Theil was a public figure for being rich. And people on twitter are public figures for posting in public.

No one is arguing that Gawker, or anyone else, doesn't have the right to cover a sex tape. That's not the same as publishing a sex tape.

Several people have argued that this is a First Amendment issue, in this comment section and throughout the media. That means that yes, people are standing by the publication of the original story.

The condescending tone, insistence of Gawker's victimhood and refusal to speak about the case except in (shaky) First Amendment terms definitely made me feel like they were treating people with privacy concerns as insignificant, or peripheral.

$320 Million makes Denton part of that elite, he even came in at #502 of the richest people in the world in a 2007 list and he did have free reign ruing a great many lives until this case. Your argument is self-defeating.

Truly.

It can also mean to marginalize.

The problem with your argument being that in this case there was no twisting of the system and there are several other unrelated cases where there was.

I remember the time whilst vacationing at the secluded Alpine Sudetenwaltz in Upper Nebelsbad when I saw him eating a baby.

So that's a yes? I'll put you down as "pro" on revenge porn?

It worries me that people think revenge porn ought to be covered by free speech.

320 Million seems plenty close and the scale seems to simply be "ostensibly agrees with my politics."

Yes, and it's the lesser evil by such a wide margin that it's mind boggling that anyone could argue against it.

So you are arguing for revenge porn. You are arguing that justified lawsuits should not be allowed instead of arguing about examples that actually are wrong.

Then why not argue about that instead of this entirely justified example? Why are people arguing FOR revenge porn on the basis of mere possibility?

So Gawker should be sheltered from that?

Then why does everyone not whinge about that instead of this entirely justified example?

It's not increasingly so, it's always been the case. The only difference is that now people's favorite vile rag is being targeted.

So revenge porn should be allowed in order to prevent some vague future threat.