I'd be more concerned about the precedent it set if Gawker had won. The publishing of secrets derived from an invasion of privacy is defensible by "free speech

I'd be more concerned about the precedent it set if Gawker had won. The publishing of secrets derived from an invasion of privacy is defensible by "free speech" if something of great moral/ethical imperative is gained. Publishing papers that reveal years of lying and misleading the American public about the true extent of the US government's involvement in Vietnam and surrounding countries, aka the Pentagon Papers? Defensible. Publishing a videotape without consent of someone having sex? Gawker can scream "free speech" till they're blue in the face; I think your average person is going to recognize a blatant violation of privacy occurred with little gained. Look, I get it: free speech = awesome. But I don't think your average person sees free speech as an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.