That article’s a dud, man. I can’t even begin to find anything worthwhile to extract out of it, unless I copied it word for word. (I’d be a terrible HuffPo blogger.)
So far, that is all that happened. Otherwise there is this wonky guy - the one hosting the site - who wants the opinion legally “published” so that it can be cited in future cases, as the judge’s opinion mentioned “links” to supporting content specifically. But this is very basic stuff about how interactive publishing works, and how citations can be handled differently than print, and I suppose the only advantage that a published opinion would have for bloggers is that even your most brain dead advocate would be able to cite this case without making much of an argument, and even your most brain dead justice would accept the citation as a strong argument in favor of a defendant. It would purge shitty lawsuits through the system faster.
But all of this is really on the extreme side of “white people problems”. I think if you’re blogging about people who can sue you for defamation, you should consider having a pitbull attorney on staff. Gawker Media has very competent attorneys tending to their business. That said, they’re also massively overcapitalized through their owner. Most of our schemes and projects have shoestring funding, if any at all, and we should probably attempt less risky and expensive professions and hobbies than the ones that clearly risk us getting dragged into court by litigious douchebags.
BTW, what a dreadfully dull and tired topic. “Tech Conferences Are Full Of Hacks And Scammers.” OH REALLY, DO TELL! It’s like reading another Mark Bittman column about tomatoes.
(Ok I guess I just wrote it.)