3 ms·

I'm a bit confused why people are taking the side of Hulk Hogan. Maybe the dislike of gossip news is blinding people to the larger free speech implications. Do

I'm a bit confused why people are taking the side of Hulk Hogan. Maybe the dislike of gossip news is blinding people to the larger free speech implications. Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person? Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent? Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc) If you answered 'yes' to all 3, what principals (or ideally…laws) let you side with Hulk Hogan?

Thriptic 11y ago
At the end of the day I am forced to agree with you. Is the publication of this content morally wrong? Yes. Are the publishers pieces of shit for doing this? Yes. Is what they did illegal? Unless they committed a crime to obtain the content, I would have to say no.
- Delmania 11y ago
  It's not illegal, but it publishing someone's intimate details without his consent falls into the realm of civil law.
Kristine1975 11y ago
>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person? Yes. >Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent? Depends. Is it important that other people know these facts, as in "will they be harmed/make bad decisions if they don't know them"? (Think knowledge about a politician.) >Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc) See question two.
WizardlySquid 11y ago
There's a massive difference between wikileaks who report on human rights violations of governments and Gawker posting a sex tape with the intent of ruining a person's life.
cseelus 11y ago
I don't think a publication should be allowed to publish intimate facts about a person without their consent, if there is no greater good at stake. This includes irrelevant sextapes. Also if there is a greater good at stake (for example the security of a nation) its questionable if the public needs to have access to every intimate detail, that often just contribute to humiliating the person in question.
Delmania 11y ago
Because this is a civil case, that's why. The government has does nothing to Gawker. No one has been censored, illegally detained, or made to vanish. That is what free speech is about: ensuring the government cannot censor or retaliate against you for publishing an piece of work that criticizes the government. In civil cases, freedom of speech does not cover defamation of character (libel and slander). I think publishing someone's sex tape could definitely harm their reputation, which is what free speech does NOT protect. Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
chris_wot 11y ago
Wow, talk about making a false argument! Let's rephrase this: Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that are in the public interest? Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were obtained illegally but were given to the publication, and that are in the public interest? Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent, when it is in the public interest? Yes, I do. But you shouldn't be able to photograph me in my own home whilst I'm naked and having a shower, and certainly not without my consent. Nor should you be able to do this to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Nor should you be allowed to make these photos by breaking into my house and installing a miniature camera in my bathroom.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  > But you shouldn't be able to photograph me in my own home whilst I'm naked and having a shower, and certainly not without my consent. Did you intend the implication that, if I had your consent, I probably still shouldn't be able to photograph you in the shower?
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    No.
deelowe 11y ago
That's not how defamation works. The Hogan case hinged on him being able to demonstrate that gawker harmed his ability to continue to make money. The jury decided that there was material harm. And, perhaps the judge threw the book at them due to their arrogance: refusing to obey a court order to take down the offending material and making flippant comments about child porn.
abiox 11y ago
depends on what "publish facts" means. if you're being vague enough that privacy effectively ceases to exist, then no. you'll need to be a bit more clear and specific on what this means.

Thriptic 11y ago

At the end of the day I am forced to agree with you. Is the publication of this content morally wrong? Yes. Are the publishers pieces of shit for doing this? Yes. Is what they did illegal? Unless they committed a crime to obtain the content, I would have to say no.

Delmania 11y ago
It's not illegal, but it publishing someone's intimate details without his consent falls into the realm of civil law.

Kristine1975 11y ago

>Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person? Yes. >Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent? Depends. Is it important that other people know these facts, as in "will they be harmed/make bad decisions if they don't know them"? (Think knowledge about a politician.) >Do you think a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were initially obtained illegally but were given to the publication? (see wikileaks…etc) See question two.

WizardlySquid 11y ago

There's a massive difference between wikileaks who report on human rights violations of governments and Gawker posting a sex tape with the intent of ruining a person's life.

cseelus 11y ago

I don't think a publication should be allowed to publish intimate facts about a person without their consent, if there is no greater good at stake. This includes irrelevant sextapes. Also if there is a greater good at stake (for example the security of a nation) its questionable if the public needs to have access to every intimate detail, that often just contribute to humiliating the person in question.

Delmania 11y ago

Because this is a civil case, that's why. The government has does nothing to Gawker. No one has been censored, illegally detained, or made to vanish. That is what free speech is about: ensuring the government cannot censor or retaliate against you for publishing an piece of work that criticizes the government. In civil cases, freedom of speech does not cover defamation of character (libel and slander). I think publishing someone's sex tape could definitely harm their reputation, which is what free speech does NOT protect. Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

chris_wot 11y ago

Wow, talk about making a false argument! Let's rephrase this: Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that are in the public interest? Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person that were obtained illegally but were given to the publication, and that are in the public interest? Do you think that a publication should be able to publish facts about a person without their consent, when it is in the public interest? Yes, I do. But you shouldn't be able to photograph me in my own home whilst I'm naked and having a shower, and certainly not without my consent. Nor should you be able to do this to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Nor should you be allowed to make these photos by breaking into my house and installing a miniature camera in my bathroom.

dllthomas 11y ago
> But you shouldn't be able to photograph me in my own home whilst I'm naked and having a shower, and certainly not without my consent. Did you intend the implication that, if I had your consent, I probably still shouldn't be able to photograph you in the shower?
- chris_wot 11y ago
  No.

deelowe 11y ago

That's not how defamation works. The Hogan case hinged on him being able to demonstrate that gawker harmed his ability to continue to make money. The jury decided that there was material harm. And, perhaps the judge threw the book at them due to their arrogance: refusing to obey a court order to take down the offending material and making flippant comments about child porn.

abiox 11y ago

depends on what "publish facts" means. if you're being vague enough that privacy effectively ceases to exist, then no. you'll need to be a bit more clear and specific on what this means.