I'm only speculating but maybe it's important that the management sends a message, both to the public and their own staff, that this kind of reporting isn't something they tolerate. I thought the original incident was pretty shameful of Gawker in the first place so perhaps someone was trying to make amends?
But why remove it in the first place? It's already been posted...
I'm only speculating but maybe it's important that the management sends a message, both to the public and their own staff, that this kind of reporting isn't something they tolerate. I thought the original incident was pretty shameful of Gawker in the first place so perhaps someone was trying to make amends?
The president of gawker dissented against taking it down, one of the two votes to keep it...
Oops, misread it. Thanks for the correction
Because lawsuits can be expensive. I don't know if the victim would win the lawsuit, but litigation costs money and reputations.