I was commenting on another thread about this, there's a big difference between free speech and defamation of character. Of course it's hurtful calling someone gay in a insulting manner, and it insinuates being gay is a bad thing. But defamation is intent to shame or harass that person, falsely leading others to believe a untruth about said person. Maliciously, or with a forethought of malice. People w,ere comparing Larry Flynts court win to Gawker posting hellaciously incorrect stories; with the sole purpose of defamation. I think the difference came down to a target audience, Flynts editorial about Jerry Falwell was specifically targeted for his readers, over 18 as well. Gawkers target was anyone would would fucking listen to their bullshit, with specific intent to harm that persons reputation. I'm not a lawyer, I'm a mechanic, that enjoys reading various things including court cases, so I could be totally fucking wrong. But that's what I took from the South Park-Tom Cruise incident, it had a target audience that it was portraying Tom Cruise in a satirical manner to. It did not come off as malicious intent to harm him, or to discredit his character. I think that's the line that separates the two.