I think what they're getting at is that defending yourself in court is not easy or free even if you have the truth on your side. A determined litigant can bury

I think what they're getting at is that defending yourself in court is not easy or free even if you have the truth on your side. A determined litigant can bury you in paperwork, costs, and other hindrances to the point that your speech is essentially surpressed. The OP case is a good example. Showing up to contest the requested inunction likely cost a lot more than the story is worth. J+J knew they were going to lose this, but they wanted to remind the publisher that they need a lawyer on speed dial. As much as journalists and editors claim they aren't cowed by this kind of behavior, you can bet that they will tread carefully around j+j in the future