This phrase is doing a lot of work here; what you’re essentially describing is Hogan suing Gawker, and settling, because he wouldn’t have the money to pursue his case over what would surely be a drawn-out litigation. Like what happened here:
In 2012, a young North Carolina woman sued Gawker Media and Deep Dive Media for defamation, accusing both of aggregating a local news article speculating about whether she had exposed herself in a high school yearbook photo. (She was not named in the article.) A district judge denied Gawker’s request to dismiss the suit, and both parties later settled in mediation, according to Chris Mauriello, the woman’s lawyer.
Why is the legal budget of Gawker Media LLC (bought by Univision for $135 M) the limiting factor in who can seek remedy for its violation of their privacy? We’re saying that being unable to pursue legal remedy and being forced to settle privacy violations is a journalistic good?
