6 ms·

I don't like Gawker either. But seeing people praise this decision merely because Gawker sucks, while casually dismissing other concerns, including the serious

I don't like Gawker either. But seeing people praise this decision merely because Gawker sucks, while casually dismissing other concerns, including the serious First Amendment ramifications, makes me very uneasy.

slg 11y ago
What are the legitimate First Amendment ramifications here? Gawker published a sex tape of Hogan. And this wasn't a Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian "maybe they leaked it themselves" style sex tape. This was a "security camera footage, he might not have even known he was being recorded" sex tape. That isn't an issue of freedom, it is an issue about sexually victimizing someone.
imron 11y ago
What serious First Amendment ramifications are these? The First Amendment doesn't give you free reign to say whatever you like whenever you like, and there are already limitations on the First Amendment with regards to things like obscenity and speech that appeals to prurient interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Obscenity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... Posting a private sex tape without permission is not likely to pass the Miller test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
- icebraining 11y ago
  How would the lack of permission after the Miller test?
Crito 11y ago
Gawker wasn't whining about the First Amendment when it was female celebrities whose tapes were leaked. This is a good outcome in every possible respect.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
What are the First Amendment ramifications? Distributing naked pictures of someone without their consent has never been legal. The fact that they were taken in the cameraman's home is no defense. This is no different than a frat boy putting a hidden camera in the frathouse bathroom before a party and then distributing pics of freshman girls with their pants down.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Distributing naked pictures of someone without their consent has never been legal. Which law prohibits it?
  - over 11y ago
    I stfw'd a little and found these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Sta... http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-laws-penalties.htm http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-...

slg 11y ago

What are the legitimate First Amendment ramifications here? Gawker published a sex tape of Hogan. And this wasn't a Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian "maybe they leaked it themselves" style sex tape. This was a "security camera footage, he might not have even known he was being recorded" sex tape. That isn't an issue of freedom, it is an issue about sexually victimizing someone.

imron 11y ago

What serious First Amendment ramifications are these? The First Amendment doesn't give you free reign to say whatever you like whenever you like, and there are already limitations on the First Amendment with regards to things like obscenity and speech that appeals to prurient interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Obscenity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... Posting a private sex tape without permission is not likely to pass the Miller test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

icebraining 11y ago
How would the lack of permission after the Miller test?

Crito 11y ago

Gawker wasn't whining about the First Amendment when it was female celebrities whose tapes were leaked. This is a good outcome in every possible respect.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

What are the First Amendment ramifications? Distributing naked pictures of someone without their consent has never been legal. The fact that they were taken in the cameraman's home is no defense. This is no different than a frat boy putting a hidden camera in the frathouse bathroom before a party and then distributing pics of freshman girls with their pants down.

icebraining 11y ago
Distributing naked pictures of someone without their consent has never been legal. Which law prohibits it?
- over 11y ago
  I stfw'd a little and found these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Sta... http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-laws-penalties.htm http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-...