[davesque]

Well, not exactly. The law is not perfect. It's enforced and deliberated by humans. If someone is guilty, it doesn't mean they're objectively guilty, as though such a thing even really exists. It means someone brought and argued a case against them and a judge or jury (one person or a small handful of people) agreed with the argument. We may like to think that the set of rules which leads to a judge or jury's decision is logical but it's far from it.

So I don't buy into the notion that, simply because Gawker was found guilty by a court of law, we should not consider their side of things.

[ng12]

Did you actually read about the case or do you just follow the "Peter Thiel is bad" doctrine? I feel like when you're defending revenge porn you've lost touch a bit.

They literally published an article about how they're ignoring a court order over the matter: http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...

[davesque]

You're right. In principle, my comment has nothing to do with the case. I was responding to the parent posters' suggestions that, simply because Gawker broke the law, no one should come to their defense, which I was saying are short-sighted because they suppose that the law is somehow beyond reproach, which it isn't.