In this case you could tell the original article was BS so it's kind of irrelevant. The only 'evidence' against him was a list of permits he hadn't applied for, there was no mention of anything that was actually damaged. (Except for the picture of the tree that supposedly 'looked unhappy' or whatever for being in the middle of a rock wall.)
The report [1] the original article was based on listed accusations which don't make the incident sound nearly as trivial (i.e. BS) as you are claiming:
>Within the existing privately run public campground, unpermitted development including, but not limited to: grading; construction of multiple structures including a gateway and arch, an artificial pond, a stone bridge, multiple event platforms with elevated floors, rock walls, artificially created “ruins” of cottage and castle walls, multiple rock stairways, and a dance floor; and installation of over 125 potted trees, potted plants, event tents, port-a- potties, generators, lighting, and wedding facilities for guests. [2]
That being said, I agree that Sean Parker's defense should have been pursued before the original article was published.
There was the pretty major point made that Parker could not have legally applied for permits on this land, since it's privately owned land owned by the hotel that was hosting his wedding; the hotel should have.
