I certainly agree that it's difficult to see anything resembling a meaningful public interest in publishing the tapes - I'm surprised but pleased to see that the US courts didn't do their normal "you're a public figure so you have no rights" as tends to be the case with defamation or privacy cases.
Their fear is that if they concede on this point, what else will they have to concede and will their profession back them when they are in the same position, but for more noble reasons. Self preservation and principle.
They'd also get some peer pressure in the form of ostracism for breaking with the standard professional stance on the question.
Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-appar...
I think $115 million is OK.
Let me put it this way: I don't care for Gawker and wouldn't mind personally if it sank (though there are good journalists there doing good work); I do care for the potential chilling effect this could have on other media.
(And let me make clear that I do think Bollea should have been compensated and Gawker punished, just not with $115 million.)
Gawker was 100% in the wrong to release this tape, and they've shown a pattern of seriously abusive behavior before now. Some of sites in the Gawker network have decent writers with some integrity, and I'll be sorry that if need to find new employment; but Gawker as an entity is too corrupt to be salvaged.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_pro... [2] http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/blah-blah-blah-gawker-editor-bl...
Freedoms of this nature must be protected regardless of the context. Gawker's unethical behaviour accross the network, from outing comfortably closeted gay people to failing to disclose obvious bias, is awful; but should not be forbidden. The cure is worse than the illness. My apologies to Matt Drudge if it seems like I'm making light of the action as intellectual pornography.
Journalists look at Gawker writers and naturally think "There but for the grace of God, go I". So they have a lot of sympathy.
On a personal level I would love to see Gawker the company fold - but punishing media for publishing true facts is troubling. After all Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener also had their privacy invaded. The idea of a media outlet being sued (although with good chance of winning the case) could hurt coverage of worthier targets.
They are being made responsible for harm that results.
These are different things.
someone give gawker your bank account details, and gawker decides to publish. it's okay for gawker to do this?
And yes - I will have case against the person that gave information to gawker. But not against gawker themselves.