You can read the article here.

Here is an exerpt:
"'It is clear that plaintiff did not bring this lawsuit because she was falsely accused of acting goofy,' Hart Cole wrote. 'The issue is whether it is defamatory to state that a husband and wife taped themselves engaging in consensual sex.'

The judge went on to conclude that Spears has 'put her modern sexuality squarely, and profitably, before the public eye' in a way that would make it unlikely for the magazine article to be found defamatory."

Because the dictionary defines defamation as "false or unjustified injury to someone's good reputation" is the judge saying that Britney Spears has no good reputation left?

The Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that to prove libel, there has to be "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them. In other words, you have to be trying to damage Britney Spears career. The judge in this case is basically saying that she has ruined her own career to the point that people will believe anything they read about her sex life.

If that doesn't make sense, think of it like this. I could write that Ted Haggard buys drugs and has gay sex, but he has damaged his own credibility to the point that even if he says he hasn't had gay sex, it's hard to believe the guy.

And by the way, Britney, should you get an idea to sue me over this, I am simply reporting the news article in my own words. I am not trying to damage your career, or whatever is left of it. If you take exception to my use of the word "skanky" I would remind you that you are the one who got married to the dude wearing a "Pimps" tracksuit. Perhaps you don't know what "pimp" means, but among normal people, the word "skanky" often follows. At any rate, I am only poking a stick at your enormous butt AND the very idea of celebrity. And that, my dearest, is covered under satire. Ask your lawyer to define it. Right after he watches some more homemade pornos with you. Wow. You really are a class act, ain't ya Miss Spears?