Because Jingus argued that what happens in the bedroom of celebrities is irrelevant, full stop. Sometimes it is. And frankly, it doesn't even need to rise to the level of Cosby's crimes (admittedly a weak analogy, but someone tried to compare this case to Plessy v. Ferguson earlier in the thread) to be absolutely newsworthy and of value to report on and show, based on the situation. The point is that restrictive laws on speech potentially edge out very valuable speech. It's why we protect even somewhat frivolous speech, to avoid chilling valuable speech in the future.
The Plessy reference wasn't trying to equate a celebrity sex tape with segregation. The point was that you can't use a court decision as moral justification. Courts, including the Supreme Court, get it wrong.