Under PCC code and libel law, Florence is entirely in the clear on this one. A public quote from twitter is subject to criticism. This even includes the questions of if she is fit to practice or not due to her public quotes. She hasn't got a leg to stand on. If she makes a public statement that is directly quoted. Then she puts it in the public domain and gives the people the right to analyse and criticise her statements. Politician's quotes on twitter are subject to the same and thanks to the Leveson inquiry, so have Journalists (ex-NOTW editor Neil Wallis in particular) and the right to ask is she fit to practice.
It's the threat and high cost of libel lawyers which is making Eurogamer group back down, however. And if you have been a fan of the esteemed organ, Private Eye, over it's lifetime. You know that the threat of a libel suit is used to stifle criticism as the high cost of fighting it is not worth it to a significant amount of publications (Usually accompanied by a letter from everyone's favourite libel solicitors, Carter-Fuck). Which leads to them backing down.I can't imagine Eurogamer group produces the amount of profit needed to fight such a case.
But then ideally Eurogamer should have cited the precedent of Arkell Vs Pressdram, 1971 in response to her because she doesn't have a leg to stand on but money is money.
"Cash Rules Everything Around Me" - Old Staten Island proverb