Wait. Gawker Did Something Illegal?

Up front, I have to say the fact that Quentin Tarantino identifies Gawker's actions as 'illegal' in his suit filed against the website a tad silly. I suppose that's in case the judge and/or jury is/are a bit slow. At the risk of being sued, here's what I'm talking about:

"...brazenly encourages Gawker visitors to read the screenplay illegally with an invitation to 'enjoy' it..."

So, it's not only illegal it was done brazenly (your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury). And (and!) they were sadistic (monsters) because they invited the reader to enjoy themselves while reading the damn thing. Well, dramatic it may be, but isn't the nature of the transgression for the court to decide? Isn't it a bit much for the plaintiff to inform the court beforehand that the defendant did something illegal? Or, does Quentin simply feel his writing is so good, that he's so convincing, that making it clear (with the most flowery of syntax) that a crime has been committed that a trial isn't needed, won't be necessary, and would, in fact, be a waste of time considering how clearly the heinous activities are described by his most eloquent deposition?

However, Tarantino's fairly on-the-nose writing style aside, what could Gawker have possibly done that breaks the law? Was the script stolen property? I don't think so. Tarantino did, in fact, freely give it to people to read. "Six motherfucking people," if I remember correctly. So how is it stolen property? Okay, T probably said something like, "Don't give this motherfucking script to any motherfucking body" when he passed the screenplays out but does that constitute a legally binding agreement? I don't think you can count on that.

Really, it's not like Gawker was inviting us to take the script, make our own version of the movie with it, keep all the profits from said motion picture, and not give poor T-Man even as much as a written by credit.

Further, was not Gawker reporting the news by citing that the script had been made available for download? Gawker didn't even publish the script, they simply posted links to where the script was. Despite big T saying the script was "here, not someplace else, but ‘here’ on the Gawker website" Gawker, in fact, only published links where the screenplay could be read. One leads to Scribd.com and the other Anonfiles.com. So, the script, despite allegations, did not and does not appear at Gawker's site.

Shouldn't QT sue the websites on which the script is actually posted, where it's actually available to read, rather than a site that reported the fact the script had been posted on another site? How is saying the script had been published a crime? If that's a crime there's a lot of bloggers and newspapers out there that can expect to be sued.

So, am I violating the law by writing about this? I wonder. Should I expect a letter from the Big T Man? Maybe he won't sue me. Maybe he's fed up with legal proceedings and maybe he'll just call me out, say around high noon in the main street between the saloon and the hotel.