9 ms·

So they published a privately made video about people having sex without those people's consent? Yeah, good riddance Gawker. I'm still hoping the Condé Nast CFO

by Kristine1975 11y ago

So they published a privately made video about people having sex without those people's consent? Yeah, good riddance Gawker. I'm still hoping the Condé Nast CFO sues them for outing him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_prostitution_claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Cond.C3.A9_Nast_CFO_pro...

raverbashing 11y ago
Yes, that's pretty much it Oh and with an added contempt of court: a Judge ordered them to take it down and they refused
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Oh and with an added contempt of court: a Judge ordered them to take it down and they refused Not just that: a Judge ordered them to take it down and they published an article bragging about their refusal.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Yup, that's an extra $15 million. Serves them right. I'll bet all the staffers who made crude jokes and laughed at a guy having consensual sex with someone in what they thought was a private, intimate act wouldn't be very happy if the same was done to them. This whole argument that public people don't have ANY right to privacy is utterly absurd, and Gawker have been very much been brought down to earth - hard. And funnily enough, thought I cant stand the man - they've been super critical of a variety of unethical and outrageous things Trump has said and done. But Trump hasn't ever published a sex tape, and defied a court order to remove it!
vermontdevil 11y ago
How different is this from Snowden giving top secret documents to Greenwald et al? It's the "compelling news interest" so I think it falls under the First Amendment for Gawker. I wouldn't be surprised it'll be overturned on appeal. But Florida does require a bond to be put up and it's significant. This might hamstring Gawker while they go through the appeals process.
- DanBC 11y ago
  What's the compelling news interest with hulk hogan sex tape? "In the public interest" != "what the public is interested in".
  - vermontdevil 11y ago
    Entertainment news. Yeah I personally do not care. But Hulk has fans. And always boast of his sexual prowess, uses the media to sell his image etc. Hence news interest in that area. It's distasteful but I prefer the 1A protect as much as possible before the govt or courts tries to narrow it down.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      Nothing you have just said makes that sex tape of vital public interest.
    - Delmania 11y ago
      The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS. Bollea was forced to leave the WWE, and his brand was damaged as a result of this action. He suffered real monetary loss. This is literally an example of the textbook definition of defamation, which in CIVIL cases, the first amendment does not protect. You are not allowed to say harmful or malicious things about another person that has the potential to cause damage to their reputation.
      - harryh 11y ago
        In order for something to be defamation it has to be a false statement. No one has accused Gawker of saying anything untrue. So no, this is not a textbook example of defamation. You're also confused about the scope of the 1st amendment. It applies in civil cases. I'm not sure why you would think it doesn't. See, for example Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell for a famous example. The trial was a central plot point in a major motion picture!
        11y ago
parennoob 11y ago
IMO, sharing the Hulk Hogan tape (where he might have been filmed without his consent) is logically equivalent to sharing the Erin Andrews video where she was filmed in a hotel room without her consent. Would Gawker have been crucified if they had published that video and bragged about it? Why is the Hulk Hogan case being treated differently by people?
- deelowe 11y ago
  Well, for one Gawker was heavily criticizing the fappening fiasco at the same time. Their stance was extremely hypocritical, which is typical of them. That said, the most damning item isn't that they posted the video. It's that they violated a court order to take it down.
  - parennoob 11y ago
    > That said, the most damning item isn't that they posted the video This might be true from a legal standpoint, but from a practical/moral one I think that is the most damning thing. I can't recall of any other time a major news publication put tapes about anyone's private life and snarkily tried to push it as news.
    - deelowe 11y ago
      I meant damning as-in shows their character/disregard for the issue at hand.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  >Would Gawker have been crucified if they had published that video and bragged about it? I would hope so. Also interesting: http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury-seated/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury... A judge ruled Friday in St. Petersburg, Florida, that Hogan's legal team won't be able to cite Andrews' ongoing case in his defense.
  - Delmania 11y ago

raverbashing 11y ago

Yes, that's pretty much it Oh and with an added contempt of court: a Judge ordered them to take it down and they refused

chimeracoder 11y ago
> Oh and with an added contempt of court: a Judge ordered them to take it down and they refused Not just that: a Judge ordered them to take it down and they published an article bragging about their refusal.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Yup, that's an extra $15 million. Serves them right. I'll bet all the staffers who made crude jokes and laughed at a guy having consensual sex with someone in what they thought was a private, intimate act wouldn't be very happy if the same was done to them. This whole argument that public people don't have ANY right to privacy is utterly absurd, and Gawker have been very much been brought down to earth - hard. And funnily enough, thought I cant stand the man - they've been super critical of a variety of unethical and outrageous things Trump has said and done. But Trump hasn't ever published a sex tape, and defied a court order to remove it!

vermontdevil 11y ago

How different is this from Snowden giving top secret documents to Greenwald et al? It's the "compelling news interest" so I think it falls under the First Amendment for Gawker. I wouldn't be surprised it'll be overturned on appeal. But Florida does require a bond to be put up and it's significant. This might hamstring Gawker while they go through the appeals process.

DanBC 11y ago
What's the compelling news interest with hulk hogan sex tape? "In the public interest" != "what the public is interested in".
- vermontdevil 11y ago
  Entertainment news. Yeah I personally do not care. But Hulk has fans. And always boast of his sexual prowess, uses the media to sell his image etc. Hence news interest in that area. It's distasteful but I prefer the 1A protect as much as possible before the govt or courts tries to narrow it down.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Nothing you have just said makes that sex tape of vital public interest.
  - Delmania 11y ago
    The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS. Bollea was forced to leave the WWE, and his brand was damaged as a result of this action. He suffered real monetary loss. This is literally an example of the textbook definition of defamation, which in CIVIL cases, the first amendment does not protect. You are not allowed to say harmful or malicious things about another person that has the potential to cause damage to their reputation.
    - harryh 11y ago
      In order for something to be defamation it has to be a false statement. No one has accused Gawker of saying anything untrue. So no, this is not a textbook example of defamation. You're also confused about the scope of the 1st amendment. It applies in civil cases. I'm not sure why you would think it doesn't. See, for example Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell for a famous example. The trial was a central plot point in a major motion picture!
      - 11y ago

parennoob 11y ago

IMO, sharing the Hulk Hogan tape (where he might have been filmed without his consent) is logically equivalent to sharing the Erin Andrews video where she was filmed in a hotel room without her consent. Would Gawker have been crucified if they had published that video and bragged about it? Why is the Hulk Hogan case being treated differently by people?

deelowe 11y ago
Well, for one Gawker was heavily criticizing the fappening fiasco at the same time. Their stance was extremely hypocritical, which is typical of them. That said, the most damning item isn't that they posted the video. It's that they violated a court order to take it down.
- parennoob 11y ago
  > That said, the most damning item isn't that they posted the video This might be true from a legal standpoint, but from a practical/moral one I think that is the most damning thing. I can't recall of any other time a major news publication put tapes about anyone's private life and snarkily tried to push it as news.
  - deelowe 11y ago
    I meant damning as-in shows their character/disregard for the issue at hand.
Kristine1975 11y ago
>Would Gawker have been crucified if they had published that video and bragged about it? I would hope so. Also interesting: http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury-seated/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-jury... A judge ruled Friday in St. Petersburg, Florida, that Hogan's legal team won't be able to cite Andrews' ongoing case in his defense.
- Delmania 11y ago