11 Answers for the Daily Dot

So since the spectacular crash and burn of the Gawker, we've had a rash of people "asking questions" in much the same way that the birthers have.  One particular article is that of the Daily Dot, which has posted its 11 questions to defend the spectacular shit show that was Gawker.  So, here are 11 answers to those questions:

1.  To paraphrase, "could" and "should" are not "is" and "are".  As to that federal court, they were ruling on the preliminary injunction issued and not the merits of the lawsuit itself.  Those get hashed out in a jury trial\, as we saw.
2.  Again, the author is confusing the issues of the preliminary injunction (which the federal court ruled on as an unconstitutional prior restraint) and the lawsuit itself.  As for the amount of the award itself, that's an issue to be decided on appeal. It certainly wasn't anything that Gawker helped itself in by flipping the court the bird and continuing to show the video rather than waiting for the appeal to overturn the injunction or by saying that porn videos of five year olds are "newsworthy".  Oh, and misrepresenting the value of stocks to the court, as Mr. Denton did in order to stave off asset forfeiture didn't help.
3.  Asking about the innocent reporters who had nothing to do with this story is a good question, but it would have been better if Gawker had asked it prior to publishing this story in the first place.  And the companies own actions contributed to the financial death penalty.  Show a little more respect for the court and this doesn't come down as hard as it did.  There were innocent employees of Enron and Arthur Andersen as well, but that does not shift any blame away. As for the New York Times, this may be a value judgement but I'd put the editorial judgement and discretion of the Times up against Gawker any day of the millennium even ignoring the distinction between invasion of privacy and defamation as the questioner has done.
4. See #3.  Don't lie to the court and this doesn't happen. Now even if  the lawsuit does get reversed it's the equivalent of apologizing to the corpse, but that's completely on Gawker for its behavior before the court.
5. Prior bad acts are always a part of any calculation of punitive damages. This is why National Enquirer cleaned its house after Carol Burnett won a defamation case against them.
6. We don't have to agree with the variety of other lawsuits, Peter Thiel, the price of tea in China, etc.  Those lawsuits didn't succeed, and there is no proof they were inflicting even a paper cut, much less a thousand.
7.  And there's a solution for that.  It's called anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and it works. It has no part of what happened here, though.
8.  The only blood those lawyers will smell is the blood coming out of their own noses if they try to sue for defamation based upon a person running for public office, particularly given Trump's own record. 
9.  And we're back to #3.  Denton doesn't lie to the court, he can secure the bond through his stocks and not have everything tied up in asset seizure.
10. Yes I believe in civil Gideon but not as an attempt to deflect away from Gawker's bad behavior.  Though not quite the chutzpah of a patricide throwing himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan, it certainly has some gall.
11. And the article ends with even more deflection by throwing in other publications who have somehow managed not to be sued to oblivion in the time before Gawker but are suddenly in mortal peril because a jackass got his comeuppance in court partly through his own behavior.  National Enquirer and the other publications have lawyers and editorial boards who know how to handle stories and not get the shit sued out of them.

The First Amendment is alive and well. It is no better or worse than when the Gawker verdict was returned. Celebrity sites will still publish titillating details  about celebrities because in the end it's instruments of financial transactions, bovine fecal matter, and lower appendages.  But if one or two of them review their legal (and ethical) standards of how they present that information, maybe it's a good thing after all.