No one is contesting the site's right to describe every detail of the video in words. This case is all about the moving image.

Hogan's lawyers say we're in danger of seeing a different kind of slippery slope if Gawker has its way. "There’s a world of difference between discussing something and showing a pornographic video, something that goes online and can be seen forever," Hogan's attorney, David R. Houston, told the Times, warning that "absolutely nothing will be private anymore" if his client loses. Hogan and his representatives took their complaint to federal court in 2012. After Gawker won that round, Hogan went through the Florida courts.

Why does this all matter to you? Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, explains to The NY Times that the definition of the word "newsworthy" and what meets this vague criteria is the key. And "newsworthiness" often depends on the context — the standard could be applied differently, for example, for celebrity cases versus those involving private citizens such as revenge porn victims, Chemerinsky and other experts told The NY Times.