Ho-kay.

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on this site. If Terry Bollea knew he was being taped, and that tape was rights secured by Gawker for publication, where's the model release? Anything else is The Fappening, you know when J-Lo's nude photographs leaked out onto the web she was aware that she was being photographed, that was spank-bank material for her then boyfriend. The copyright would be owned by the photographer (either the boyfriend or J-lo, I'm not sure if they were selfies), but for publication the model rights need to be secured as well. Oh, and if you're producing adult content such as documenting sexually explicit acts on film, you gotta keep a record of everyone and their contracts at the ready when you start distributing that film. That's not your argument, is it? I didn't think so.

Don't forget Florida has a revenge porn law against "sexual cyberharassment", and while that won't apply retroactively in Terry Bollea's case, I kind of wish it did because everyone seems to forget the emotional damage Heather, the non-celebrity, is suffering from this. She testified that they weren't aware that they were being filmed, and once again this is key. It's a secretly recorded sex act, which is exactly the sort of stuff people go to jail for. For some bizarre reason Gawker is turning this into a first amendment issue, when there are already laws on the books preventing creeper shots, spycameras in dressing rooms and secret sex tapings in bedrooms.

To those arguing about the "chilling effect" this might have on the first amendment, have you considered the opposite? The no holds-barred effect it could have on revenge-porn kings if publishing sex & nude pics you gather from an anonymous source is suddenly legal?

Someone posted this as a reply to us on twitter. In 2004 a writer named John Lee from Africana.com posted an article on Alternet arguing that Denton's Gawker empire was a racist institution.

Denton has mapped out a route for monetizing the blog world in short order. It is a strategy to provoke outrage and publicity by taking the piss out of celebrities and luminaries of New York and DC. And I don't have any problem with that. It's just that these sites have decided that one way to telegraph their supreme coolness is to continually joke about non-whites as marginalized second-class citizens. It's this casual, damaging disregard that is hard to quantify, and yet, Gawker and Wonkette exemplify the growing phenomenon of white hipsters adopting a casual racism. Is it any wonder so many still feel blogging's a white man's sport?

Reminder, back when Carol Burnett sued The Enquirer they tried the first amendment defense as well. CAROL BURNETT GIVEN $1.6 MILLION IN SUIT AGAINST NATIONAL ENQUIRER

The publication based much of its defense on what Mr. Masterson termed ''the First Amendment issue,'' or the press's Constitutional right to report the news without restraint.

''I speak not only for a client but also for a principle, and that is the freedom of the press - your right to know,'' Mr. Masterson said in his closing argument.

''There are some who may feel that some news is more important than other,'' Mr. Masterson said, apparently alluding to The Enquirer's reputation for reporting on the activities of show business and jet set celebrities. He added that 'according to the Supreme Court, news is news, period,'' and ''it's all entitled to the same protection'' under the First Amendment.

I know, right? James Corden fans hit this post all the time.