4 ms·

So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is

So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?

rodgerd 11y ago
Well, the Gawker empire already answered that question: they were highly critical of Reddit for hosting /r/fappening (rightly so, in my opinion), so it's more than a little rank to do an about face on this. I certainly agree that it's difficult to see anything resembling a meaningful public interest in publishing the tapes - I'm surprised but pleased to see that the US courts didn't do their normal "you're a public figure so you have no rights" as tends to be the case with defamation or privacy cases.
mc32 11y ago
Probably because they feel like they have to close ranks and defend a profession they see as being maligned. For them there is no grey, only black and white. All or nothing. For many other people there are degrees of freedom and rights. Their fear is that if they concede on this point, what else will they have to concede and will their profession back them when they are in the same position, but for more noble reasons. Self preservation and principle. They'd also get some peer pressure in the form of ostracism for breaking with the standard professional stance on the question.
- clevernickname 11y ago
  Being maligned by whom? "Journalists" get to control the narrative on literally any topic they choose. They had to fuck up really hard to get the rest of the press to report against them, and even then this case isn't receiving anywhere near the coverage it deserves.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    And breaking ranks on an issue like this could be the mess up that gets the rest of the press to report against them in the future...
    - makomk 11y ago
      Yeah, I think this happened to the Guardian to a certain extent after they broke the phone hacking story a few years ago.
whateveridunno 11y ago
Personally, I think that while Gawker wasn't right to release the tape, fining them $115 million isn't right either. $115 million could easily sink Gawker entirely. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the place but it's a dangerous precedent to set for press freedom if a single editor's single bad decision can take down an entire site. Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.
- microcolonel 11y ago
  While I respect that conclusion in general, I think that Gawker in particular has done a lot of sadistic and mean "reporting" which serves no public good. Them being sunk seems almost a public good in my opinion.
  - bogomipz 11y ago
    Indeed. The final straw for me was when they outed a Conde Nast exec, there was no scandal, no real story at all but they(Nick Denton) went ahead and destroyed this guy's life. You can read about it here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-apparent-outing-cfo-meets-internet-backlash/30280505/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-appar... I think $115 million is OK.
  - whateveridunno 11y ago
    I agree. However, my- or anybody's- personal opinion of a place should have no bearing on whether our judicial system decides to take an independent media outlet down during a court case involving one man. Let me put it this way: I don't care for Gawker and wouldn't mind personally if it sank (though there are good journalists there doing good work); I do care for the potential chilling effect this could have on other media. (And let me make clear that I do think Bollea should have been compensated and Gawker punished, just not with $115 million.)
- makomk 11y ago
  They ignored a previous court injunction requiring them to take the video down and bragged about it. This should sink Gawker entirely.
microcolonel 11y ago
It is certainly freedom of the press, and freedom of speech; but ultimately serves no public purpose. It's just also mean and ridiculous. Freedoms of this nature must be protected regardless of the context. Gawker's unethical behaviour accross the network, from outing comfortably closeted gay people to failing to disclose obvious bias, is awful; but should not be forbidden. The cure is worse than the illness. My apologies to Matt Drudge if it seems like I'm making light of the action as intellectual pornography.
- craigvn 11y ago
  It is difficult because on one hand we need a free press as a cornerstone of being a free country. On the other hand they do blatantly abuse that power by printing rubbish that hurts people just to make a buck, and in a lot of cases just outright lie (see current presidential primaries coverage as an example).
venomsnake 11y ago
Yes. It is freedom of the press. Leaking the tape to the public should be punishable, but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape. On a personal level I would love to see Gawker the company fold - but punishing media for publishing true facts is troubling. After all Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener also had their privacy invaded. The idea of a media outlet being sued (although with good chance of winning the case) could hurt coverage of worthier targets.
- DanBC 11y ago
  They are not being punished for broadcasting the tape. They are being made responsible for harm that results. These are different things.
- abiox 11y ago
  > but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape. someone give gawker your bank account details, and gawker decides to publish. it's okay for gawker to do this?
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Generally speaking yes. I can publish it right here. If you want to send money to my IBAN - feel free to do it. I won't mind. And yes - I will have case against the person that gave information to gawker. But not against gawker themselves.
    - asdfzxc 11y ago
      Bank account details would also have info on how you choose to spend your money though, and not just your account number.
wmil 11y ago
There aren't really that many journalism jobs out there. Especially compared to the massive number of J-School grads that come on the the market each year. Journalists look at Gawker writers and naturally think "There but for the grace of God, go I". So they have a lot of sympathy.

rodgerd 11y ago

Well, the Gawker empire already answered that question: they were highly critical of Reddit for hosting /r/fappening (rightly so, in my opinion), so it's more than a little rank to do an about face on this. I certainly agree that it's difficult to see anything resembling a meaningful public interest in publishing the tapes - I'm surprised but pleased to see that the US courts didn't do their normal "you're a public figure so you have no rights" as tends to be the case with defamation or privacy cases.

mc32 11y ago

Probably because they feel like they have to close ranks and defend a profession they see as being maligned. For them there is no grey, only black and white. All or nothing. For many other people there are degrees of freedom and rights. Their fear is that if they concede on this point, what else will they have to concede and will their profession back them when they are in the same position, but for more noble reasons. Self preservation and principle. They'd also get some peer pressure in the form of ostracism for breaking with the standard professional stance on the question.

clevernickname 11y ago
Being maligned by whom? "Journalists" get to control the narrative on literally any topic they choose. They had to fuck up really hard to get the rest of the press to report against them, and even then this case isn't receiving anywhere near the coverage it deserves.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  And breaking ranks on an issue like this could be the mess up that gets the rest of the press to report against them in the future...
  - makomk 11y ago
    Yeah, I think this happened to the Guardian to a certain extent after they broke the phone hacking story a few years ago.

whateveridunno 11y ago

Personally, I think that while Gawker wasn't right to release the tape, fining them $115 million isn't right either. $115 million could easily sink Gawker entirely. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the place but it's a dangerous precedent to set for press freedom if a single editor's single bad decision can take down an entire site. Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.

microcolonel 11y ago
While I respect that conclusion in general, I think that Gawker in particular has done a lot of sadistic and mean "reporting" which serves no public good. Them being sunk seems almost a public good in my opinion.
- bogomipz 11y ago
  Indeed. The final straw for me was when they outed a Conde Nast exec, there was no scandal, no real story at all but they(Nick Denton) went ahead and destroyed this guy's life. You can read about it here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-apparent-outing-cfo-meets-internet-backlash/30280505/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/17/gawkers-appar... I think $115 million is OK.
- whateveridunno 11y ago
  I agree. However, my- or anybody's- personal opinion of a place should have no bearing on whether our judicial system decides to take an independent media outlet down during a court case involving one man. Let me put it this way: I don't care for Gawker and wouldn't mind personally if it sank (though there are good journalists there doing good work); I do care for the potential chilling effect this could have on other media. (And let me make clear that I do think Bollea should have been compensated and Gawker punished, just not with $115 million.)
makomk 11y ago
They ignored a previous court injunction requiring them to take the video down and bragged about it. This should sink Gawker entirely.

microcolonel 11y ago

It is certainly freedom of the press, and freedom of speech; but ultimately serves no public purpose. It's just also mean and ridiculous. Freedoms of this nature must be protected regardless of the context. Gawker's unethical behaviour accross the network, from outing comfortably closeted gay people to failing to disclose obvious bias, is awful; but should not be forbidden. The cure is worse than the illness. My apologies to Matt Drudge if it seems like I'm making light of the action as intellectual pornography.

craigvn 11y ago
It is difficult because on one hand we need a free press as a cornerstone of being a free country. On the other hand they do blatantly abuse that power by printing rubbish that hurts people just to make a buck, and in a lot of cases just outright lie (see current presidential primaries coverage as an example).

venomsnake 11y ago

Yes. It is freedom of the press. Leaking the tape to the public should be punishable, but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape. On a personal level I would love to see Gawker the company fold - but punishing media for publishing true facts is troubling. After all Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener also had their privacy invaded. The idea of a media outlet being sued (although with good chance of winning the case) could hurt coverage of worthier targets.

DanBC 11y ago
They are not being punished for broadcasting the tape. They are being made responsible for harm that results. These are different things.
abiox 11y ago
> but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape. someone give gawker your bank account details, and gawker decides to publish. it's okay for gawker to do this?
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Generally speaking yes. I can publish it right here. If you want to send money to my IBAN - feel free to do it. I won't mind. And yes - I will have case against the person that gave information to gawker. But not against gawker themselves.
  - asdfzxc 11y ago
    Bank account details would also have info on how you choose to spend your money though, and not just your account number.

wmil 11y ago

There aren't really that many journalism jobs out there. Especially compared to the massive number of J-School grads that come on the the market each year. Journalists look at Gawker writers and naturally think "There but for the grace of God, go I". So they have a lot of sympathy.