My understanding is that this judgement alone is sufficient to cause Gawker's financial problems, and that there aren't others that are material. Correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here.
>Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP.
I think it's worth differentiating cases with merit from cases where there has actually been a clear judgement against the defendant. I have a hard time calling the second class unethical, regardless of the motivation.
>Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP.
I think it's worth differentiating cases with merit from cases where there has actually been a clear judgement against the defendant. I have a hard time calling the second class unethical, regardless of the motivation.