Oh come on.

There are a couple of reasons why you don’t see rich people suing news orgs into the ground:

Oh, I’m very much aware it’s the real world.

Also, no idea who x’d who out...

The fact that other people use the system the wrong way doesn’t make it right.

No, I’m someone who knows how to not get sued for invasion of privacy. Also, a person who can grasp the pretty simple concept that convincing a jury in Florida that something is bad is not the same thing as winning the case. See Food Lion case.

I certainly did not say anyone can go after any celebrity in any way.

They lost a jury trial, which nobody thinks is an accurate way to assess whether any wrong was done.

The system does not necessarily ensure justice, you’re right about that.

Right, they did what they did. Who is disputing they did it?

Completely arbitrary. No one seriously thinks that a jury decision which the defendant is not able to appeal is the full meting out of justice.

Did you read Denton’s response?

Yup. There is a difference between doing something unpleasant and something legally wrong. They did something unpleasant.

That’s your opinion. Most legal experts would agree they did nothing wrong. A few might say they did something wrong, but that there were no damages.

A) There were extremely valid grounds for appeal, and Gawker indicated they wanted to appeal. They were not denied that right, they were unable to post the unusual $50 million bond requirement. The process did not finish, it was arbitrarily halted early by a quirk in the system caused by an irrational jury award, an…

A) The facts of the case would have been VERY different if it was a poor or middle class person.

Yes. Arbitrary.

There are some pretty basic and obvious things that would’ve been extraordinarily unlikely to survive. But, yes, courts can take their time.

The right decision would’ve been allowing the court system to decide. Justice is what our judicial system decides. The process was interrupted.

Well, they won’t win it now.