9 ms·

This is what I sent to my wife about this story earlier today. I think it's true for the public too. "I guess people can do whatever they want with their money

This is what I sent to my wife about this story earlier today. I think it's true for the public too. "I guess people can do whatever they want with their money. For me the bottom line is that Hogan is a public figure and the definition of “newsworthy” isn’t up to anyone other than media to decide on. Sure, it’s tacky as fuck to report on him fucking his best friends wife and it isn’t any of anyone’s business but the market can decide if gawker should be in business or not. It shouldn’t be able to decide what they are or are not allowed to report so long as they’re true." It's creepy that the billionaires can fund lawsuits against the media because they wrote something that the billionaire didn't like but that's a free market. I don't think anyone that reads Jezebel or gawker or valleywag is going to stop reading it because Nick Denton publishing something about an ex-pro wrestler fucking a dj's wife. That's their market. The people decided this verdict was just. I think it's ridiculous but then again Trump is probably running against Clinton for the leader of the free world so you get what you get.

Artistry121 10y ago
Money in law is a major issue - but I don't see how this is a problem as much. I think it's a good thing that those who have earned money can use it to attempt to change the world - and Gawker did a jerk thing.
bzbarsky 10y ago
There is a big difference, in most people's perception, between "report on him fucking his best friends wife" and "publish video of him fucking his best friend's wife". The former happens all the time for public figures and no one bats an eye.
marcoperaza 10y ago
The specific facts of this case are pretty damning for Gawker. They were openly contemptuous of a court order to take down the video. They deserve this.
mhaymo 10y ago
The market cannot decide that invading an individual's privacy for their entertainment is ok. The negative externality there is massive.
internaut 10y ago
Guilty of speed-reading.? 1. As you say, Gawker can report on Hogan's private sex tape. Tacky but newsworthy for tabloids. 2. Gawker cannot distribute Hogan's private sex tape. That would equivalent to Playboy distributing Jennifer Lawrence nudes from The Fappening. 3. Gawker certainly can't ignore requests from judges telling them to take down the private sex tape. You've conflated the first with the second and third. Gawker is mostly getting rapped for the third point to make an example of them. That's the judge's prerogative.

Artistry121 10y ago

Money in law is a major issue - but I don't see how this is a problem as much. I think it's a good thing that those who have earned money can use it to attempt to change the world - and Gawker did a jerk thing.

bzbarsky 10y ago

There is a big difference, in most people's perception, between "report on him fucking his best friends wife" and "publish video of him fucking his best friend's wife". The former happens all the time for public figures and no one bats an eye.

marcoperaza 10y ago

The specific facts of this case are pretty damning for Gawker. They were openly contemptuous of a court order to take down the video. They deserve this.

mhaymo 10y ago

The market cannot decide that invading an individual's privacy for their entertainment is ok. The negative externality there is massive.

internaut 10y ago

Guilty of speed-reading.? 1. As you say, Gawker can report on Hogan's private sex tape. Tacky but newsworthy for tabloids. 2. Gawker cannot distribute Hogan's private sex tape. That would equivalent to Playboy distributing Jennifer Lawrence nudes from The Fappening. 3. Gawker certainly can't ignore requests from judges telling them to take down the private sex tape. You've conflated the first with the second and third. Gawker is mostly getting rapped for the third point to make an example of them. That's the judge's prerogative.