Well, not exactly. The law is not perfect. It's enforced and deliberated by humans. If someone is guilty, it doesn't mean they're objectively guilty, as though such a thing even really exists. It means someone brought and argued a case against them and a judge or jury (one person or a small handful of people) agreed with the argument. We may like to think that the set of rules which leads to a judge or jury's decision is logical but it's far from it.

So I don't buy into the notion that, simply because Gawker was found guilty by a court of law, we should not consider their side of things.