The article doesn't make a value judgement about the Gawker lawsuit, and nobody is "offended". It only contains a statement of fact: "some news organizations shy away from writing about a powerful or well-resourced person out of fear of a lawsuit".
Now I don't know if that statement is accurate, but I see no reason to doubt it.
It's also noteworthy that (as far as I remember) nobody came to Gawker's defence, precisely because it was generally accepted that publishing the tape was wrong.
However, the chilling effect isn't necessarily about journalists' fear of no longer being able to publish sex tapes. They are concerned because Gawker ultimately went down not for the indefensible sex tape, but for its treatment of Peter Thiel.
This case, if lost, would open pandora's box: You can write an article that is completely accurate, relevant, legal, and important to publish. But if it crosses the wrong billionaire, they can go through all of your archive, pick whatever I-invented-email-nutjob they believe has the best chances with a jury (or ten of them), and bankrupt you.