So I need to correct this (also, hearsay?).
To paraphrase Dr. House, "It's never slander." Slander refers to oral communications (and/or in-person communications, such as a nod of the head), and not even all of those. Libel refers to published and written communications (and, in many states, oral communications by radio or television are "published," and therefore libel). Both libel and slander are types of defamation.
But it's also wasn't defamation, which (in America) implies falsity. Bonus fun fact- that's a recent (in historical terms) development; the old rule was, "The greater the truth, the greater the libel." Anyway, what you're thinking of is Hulk Hogan (Bollea) and his suit again Gawker media (and others, including the journalist and owner) for publishing the intercourse video of Mr. Bollea with his friend's wife along with the accompanying article (re: cheating, adultery, boasting of ...ahem ... prowess).
This was not defamation (none of it was untrue), but was brought under separate causes of action (intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation, intentional infliction of emotional distress). In addition, for reasons to complicated to go into here, the case was badly mismanaged by the trial judge (who was reversed on an earlier injunction, and made a number of very bad rulings in the case) as well as Gawker's attorneys. Finally, Gawker was never "shut down," instead, due to the artful pleading of the Plaintiff's counsel, there was no coverage by Gawker's insurance, and because of the bizarre verdict, lack of remittitur (again, trial judge), and way the appellate process works via bond, it was better from a cost/benefit standpoint to sell off the company and settle the claim (for 1/5 of the verdict value) than to go through the bankruptcy process and appeal. The last issue is the most important; after the verdict, it was revealed that this was one of a number of cases against Gawker media being bankrolled by Peter Thiel (at a cost of at least $10 million) with the express purpose of shutting them down- in effect, it was a global settlement of all the cases effectuated by selling off the parent company because the litigation costs were too extreme when a billionaire was financing continuous litigation against them. The legal system isn't perfect- enough cases, eventually one gets through like this- this is why you see nuisance settlements, not just because it costs money to litigate, but also because there's no such thing as a guaranteed victory.
I interject this because your statement is akin to saying, "OJ Simpson was declared innocent by a jury of arson!" It's a jarring statement because it doesn't understand what really happened, and misstates both the legal issues (it wasn't arson, juries don't declare someone innocent ... well, not in America) as well as leaving an impression that isn't fully correct (as Mr. Simpson was later found, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have committed the unlawful acts in a civil tort action).
The case itself raised serious and continuing issues regarding the First Amendment, the ability of wealthy individuals (or groups) to finance lawsuits against entities they don't like and effectively destroy them through the legal system (and also barratry, champerty, and maintenance), the responsibility of journalists in the internet age, forum shopping, the differences between state and federal court, bond practice on appeal, jackpot juries, the availability, scope, and use of anti-SLAPP statutes in different jurisdictions, and, for that matter, journalistic standards and practices. None of these issues have easy answers; but understanding the facts of it help inform our ability to understand the issues.
