> I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack

> I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack a media organisation he doesn't like. I get your point. That is a valid broader context, but as I wrote above it is not the only one. Gawker is a media organization that gets away with attacking anyone whenever they want for any motive at all and are shielded from consequences by hiding behind their status as a "media organization" despite having no journalistic standards to speak of. Which is worse, media organizations abusing people without the means or resources to fight back, or billionaires funding lawsuits against media organizations? You're imagining the danger of a billionaire with a personal vendetta against Gawker. I'm imagining staff writers at Gawker on power trips publishing hit pieces that barely toe the line of libel and getting normal people fired for clicks.