4 ms·

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 Amen

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!
      - Delmania 11y ago
        Fair point on the defamation. Bringing up the Falwell vs. Flynt was more about protecting parody. Very few people would have taken seriously the idea that Falwell would run an ad in Hustler magazine, it was clearly satire. In this case, however, the information was recorded without the other's party's notice. I'd have to look up the laws in California, but I know in NYS, we have to inform the other party when we are recording are the conversation. In this case, it's the right to privacy vs. freedom of speech. The argument that since a person is a celebrity he does not have privscy rights never made sense. He is entitled to his privacy as much as the rest of us.
        harryh 11y ago
        You said: "The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS." I was merely pointing out that this statement is wrong. The 1st amendment does protect defendants in civil trials. In this case it was found (rightly or wrongly) that Hulk's right to privacy outweighed Gawker's freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the 1st didn't apply at all. It simply means it lost this time. It doesn't even mean that celebrity's rights to privacy will always outweigh freedom of speech. I'm sure that TMZ prints stuff every single day that celebrities would prefer to remain private and you don't see them losing lawsuits very often. This was a very particular case right on the edge of the line. And, by the way, it will certainly be appealed and Gawker could very well win in a higher court.
cm2187 11y ago
To me this closer to Kevin Bollaert / revenge porn than Snowden.
Kristine1975 11y ago
The difference I think is twofold: 1. Snowden didn't reveal somebody's private information, but information about the abuses of a government agency. 2. There's a compelling public interest in making sure government agencies don't abuse their power. Not so with private sex tapes.
Delmania 11y ago
>How different is this from Snowden giving top secret documents to Greenwald et al? The United States has different classifications of laws: criminal and civil. Snowden's case is considered criminal. He was also reporting on massive civil violations the US was (and is committing) against people. That definitely is a free speech case. Hulk vs Gawker is a civil case. Libel and slander are not protected.

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!
    - Delmania 11y ago
      Fair point on the defamation. Bringing up the Falwell vs. Flynt was more about protecting parody. Very few people would have taken seriously the idea that Falwell would run an ad in Hustler magazine, it was clearly satire. In this case, however, the information was recorded without the other's party's notice. I'd have to look up the laws in California, but I know in NYS, we have to inform the other party when we are recording are the conversation. In this case, it's the right to privacy vs. freedom of speech. The argument that since a person is a celebrity he does not have privscy rights never made sense. He is entitled to his privacy as much as the rest of us.
      - harryh 11y ago
        You said: "The 1st Amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not from INDIVIDUALS." I was merely pointing out that this statement is wrong. The 1st amendment does protect defendants in civil trials. In this case it was found (rightly or wrongly) that Hulk's right to privacy outweighed Gawker's freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the 1st didn't apply at all. It simply means it lost this time. It doesn't even mean that celebrity's rights to privacy will always outweigh freedom of speech. I'm sure that TMZ prints stuff every single day that celebrities would prefer to remain private and you don't see them losing lawsuits very often. This was a very particular case right on the edge of the line. And, by the way, it will certainly be appealed and Gawker could very well win in a higher court.

cm2187 11y ago

To me this closer to Kevin Bollaert / revenge porn than Snowden.

Kristine1975 11y ago

The difference I think is twofold: 1. Snowden didn't reveal somebody's private information, but information about the abuses of a government agency. 2. There's a compelling public interest in making sure government agencies don't abuse their power. Not so with private sex tapes.

Delmania 11y ago

>How different is this from Snowden giving top secret documents to Greenwald et al? The United States has different classifications of laws: criminal and civil. Snowden's case is considered criminal. He was also reporting on massive civil violations the US was (and is committing) against people. That definitely is a free speech case. Hulk vs Gawker is a civil case. Libel and slander are not protected.