NegaDeath wrote on Aug 23, 2016, 23:58:
The bad always outweighs the good. No group that pulls shit like the Condé Nast mess deserves moral support, regardless of how much you dislike their enemy as well. They gave their opponents an easy target with indefensible articles and paid for it. Maybe in their new careers they find a stronger moral compass and try again. The problem with how the legal system is disproportionately benefiting the rich is a completely separate issue that will not improve regardless of gawkers state of existence. They were too busy punishing homesexuals they disagree with by airing their personal secrets to seriously tackle the legal system anyways.

Edit: This article lays it out better than I can

The Nazis and the KKK do not deserve moral support, and yet their speech is fully protected. How much you value protected speech is not measured against speech you agree with; it's measured against deplorable speech. You're siding with authoritarians and the religious right with your comments. Is that your intention?

Gawker was no paragon of journalism, but that's exactly why they need fucking protection. Free speech isn't for Better Homes and Gardens or Crossword Monthly. It is exactly for outlets like Gawker that push the boundaries.