manamongkids
Full House
Rule #1b for PCF members, dont get into a legal debate with @jbutlerGawker didn't publish anything that caused Hulk to lose his job. The racist comments were not included in the tape they released and so have no bearing on damages in the case. They are relevant, but are not in Hulk's favor because they go toward whether he was arguing in good faith that the suit was pursued for any actual damages rather than simply to chill speech relating to the rest of the recordings that were circulating.
The Andrews case is actually a perfect example of how to litigate something like this if the plaintiff thinks they actually have a leg to stand on. You'll notice that she didn't go after any of the many sites that published the tape, but rather the parties who facilitated the recording itself. In the Hulk case, that would have been Bubba and his wife. But of course, going after the videographer wouldn't have discouraged publication of the racist comments, which was his intent all along.
You say that "free speech is tricky here". It really isn't. The only appellate decision reviewing the facts found against Hulk and made it clear that it wasn't even a close decision. It will be appealed again and Gawker will win. If you think it's tricky then it should be a relative flip and you should be very happy to get laid 2:1 on the result. My $300 to your $150 that, if appealed, the final result (by decision of the court hearing whatever final appeal is taken) is in Gawker's favor.
Rule #1a for reference is no thread crapping