4 ms·

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

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.

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.