MJ was offered as an example of a suit that was filed despite the fact that the speech was clearly legally protected, and where the cost of the suit was rather outrageous despite this fact. It establishes a) that people sue maliciously even when they know their suit is baseless; and b) that these suits are none-the-less expensive to defend.

It's fairly obvious that (b) is concerning, and also fairly obvious that it takes an actual suit to put a price tag on this problem. That's why the MJ case was presented.

But all of this is obvious and explained in the comments above, so this is getting very pedantic, and I don't see a) what point you're trying to make, or b) how that point is at all relevant to the overall thesis of the root comment.