Also, as long as you're not being sued in a district that's extremely friendly to the celebrity. And as long as you're not proudly defying a court order[0]. Or

Also, as long as you're not being sued in a district that's extremely friendly to the celebrity. And as long as you're not proudly defying a court order[0]. Or butchering your case with ridiculous testimony[1]. And as long as you're not giving the finger to everyone every step of the way so you have powerful enemies who are willing to fund the incredibly long process that will take you down. And as long as you don't realize that the decision sets no precedent as Gawker settled instead of appealing(pretty much any lawyer analysis concluded it was very likely to be struck down on appeal). But yeah, it just MIGHT happen to you. I believe newspaper writers should also reconsider the threat of lightning strikes, I hear they kill people every year. Gawker acted like a petulant child that was appalled it was getting punished by an admittedly broken and hypocritical system. This does not mean other people now need to fear the system anymore than they should have feared it before - its brokenness was not magically illuminated by Gawker. There are so many cases of defamation lawfare that anti-SLAPP statutes exist(bonus points not in all states!) and there are several high-prominence FA lawyers who write about the issue and organize a defense for it. If the newspaper writers were somehow unaware of this before Gawker(including all the small-time blogs which get ruined by defamation lawfare because they cannot afford representation - essentially what happened to Gawker here, just on a larger scale), then they were blind to reality. [0] - http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga... [1] - http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-of-a-4-year-old/ http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-...