5 ms·

I suppose the notion of press freedom has changed between 1991 and Gawker's case.

by cft 10y ago

gruez 10y ago
there's a difference between publishing gossip and publishing someone else's sex tape.
- cft 10y ago
  "Mr. Chieffo, a veteran entertainment lawyer, usually responds with what he calls "the facts of life" in the never-ending battle between these publications and the famous people". Why 1. That Hogan had sex with his friend's wife 2. That he was taped are not "facts of life"?
  - jdminhbg 10y ago
    Don't think the issue is that Gawker reported that Hogan was taped having sex with his friend's wife.
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      No, the issue is that they literally wrote a headline bragging about ignoring a court order to take it down[0]. Whether or not the lawsuit itself was justified (though the jury ultimately did thing so), it's pretty stupid to ignore a court order. It's even more appalling to brag about it the way they did. Quite frankly, they kind of got off easy, since the consequences could have been a lot worse. People literally go to jail for behavior like that. Look at Kim Davis, who was jailed for contempt. [0] http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
      - dingo_bat 10y ago
        I don't understand. Why did gawker fight for this? Was there any big ideal behind it or just for the lulz? I can understand if it was the President instead of hulk Hogan, but it's just a private individual in his private premises doing perfectly legal things. Why would you publish this and then fight the judicial system over it?
  - 99812912 10y ago
    I'm very glad that a lot of people here have zero chance to have any political influence, ever.
  - omegaham 10y ago
    The biggest reason is that Gawker had a court order not to release the tape, and then did anyway. That's a very different issue than publishing a story.
    - kupaka 10y ago
      No, they had a court order to take down the post, including the excerpt of the video that they posted, and they only took down the video (and, on appeal, was found to be in the right).
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Yeah. The sex tape is verifiably true.
  - CyberDildonics 10y ago
    You might have a point if they published an article saying hulk hogan had sex with whoever was in the tape.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      I struggle to understand how they could possibly have not met that standard? From their "we're not going to take down the article, only the video" post, linked elsewhere: > the Hon. Pamela A.M. Campbell, a circuit court judge in Pinellas County, Fla., issued an order compelling Gawker to remove from the internet a video of Hulk Hogan fucking his friend's ex-wife, as well as a 1,400-word narrative of the video written by former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio and 466 user-submitted comments (my emphasis) So, they did publish an article saying Hulk Hogan had sex with the person in the tape, and substantiated it with an excerpt of the tape.
      - CyberDildonics 10y ago
        They posted the video and didn't take it down when ordered by a judge.
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        What are you talking about? They did take down the video when ordered by a judge. They refused to take down the accompanying 1400-word article. http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga... > Despite her misapprehension that the issue at hand was "only about the tape," Campbell has seen clear to order us to disappear a 1,400-word article—words composed and published by Gawker Media editorial employees—simply because Hulk Hogan didn't like it. > A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal. > But the portion of the order compelling us to remove the entirety of Daulerio's post—his words, his speech—is grossly unconstitutional. We won't take it down.
spriggan3 10y ago
> I suppose the notion of press freedom has changed between 1991 and Gawker's case. Press freedom doesn't mean freedom from being sued by individuals. Gawker's case has nothing to do with Press freedom. It isn't the american government who is suing Gawker.
- icebraining 10y ago
  While it doesn't protect them from being sued, it's not true that the First Amendment and press freedom has nothing to do with civil cases. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1b0cef82-2385-42a0-9631-8a3846724833 http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1b0cef82-2385-...
Spooky23 10y ago
You can sue anyone for anything. It's easy when an angry billionaire is paying the bill.
brc 10y ago
This is two private parties slugging it out. The government adjudicates but does not have a specific law that is broken. That is by definition freedom of the press. The danger is when the government starts setting laws that the press has to follow, or has the power to drag the press through kangaroo courts where the process is the punishment. When you have an essentially private dispute between parties like this it is interesting but has little relevance to actual freedom of the press. The only issue would be if the government of the day started weighing in on the case.

I suppose the notion of press freedom has changed between 1991 and Gawker's case.

by cft 10y ago

I suppose the notion of press freedom has changed between 1991 and Gawker's case.

gruez 10y ago

there's a difference between publishing gossip and publishing someone else's sex tape.

cft 10y ago
"Mr. Chieffo, a veteran entertainment lawyer, usually responds with what he calls "the facts of life" in the never-ending battle between these publications and the famous people". Why 1. That Hogan had sex with his friend's wife 2. That he was taped are not "facts of life"?
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  Don't think the issue is that Gawker reported that Hogan was taped having sex with his friend's wife.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    No, the issue is that they literally wrote a headline bragging about ignoring a court order to take it down[0]. Whether or not the lawsuit itself was justified (though the jury ultimately did thing so), it's pretty stupid to ignore a court order. It's even more appalling to brag about it the way they did. Quite frankly, they kind of got off easy, since the consequences could have been a lot worse. People literally go to jail for behavior like that. Look at Kim Davis, who was jailed for contempt. [0] http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga...
    - dingo_bat 10y ago
      I don't understand. Why did gawker fight for this? Was there any big ideal behind it or just for the lulz? I can understand if it was the President instead of hulk Hogan, but it's just a private individual in his private premises doing perfectly legal things. Why would you publish this and then fight the judicial system over it?
- 99812912 10y ago
  I'm very glad that a lot of people here have zero chance to have any political influence, ever.
- omegaham 10y ago
  The biggest reason is that Gawker had a court order not to release the tape, and then did anyway. That's a very different issue than publishing a story.
  - kupaka 10y ago
    No, they had a court order to take down the post, including the excerpt of the video that they posted, and they only took down the video (and, on appeal, was found to be in the right).
venomsnake 10y ago
Yeah. The sex tape is verifiably true.
- CyberDildonics 10y ago
  You might have a point if they published an article saying hulk hogan had sex with whoever was in the tape.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    I struggle to understand how they could possibly have not met that standard? From their "we're not going to take down the article, only the video" post, linked elsewhere: > the Hon. Pamela A.M. Campbell, a circuit court judge in Pinellas County, Fla., issued an order compelling Gawker to remove from the internet a video of Hulk Hogan fucking his friend's ex-wife, as well as a 1,400-word narrative of the video written by former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio and 466 user-submitted comments (my emphasis) So, they did publish an article saying Hulk Hogan had sex with the person in the tape, and substantiated it with an excerpt of the tape.
    - CyberDildonics 10y ago
      They posted the video and didn't take it down when ordered by a judge.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        What are you talking about? They did take down the video when ordered by a judge. They refused to take down the accompanying 1400-word article. http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hoga... > Despite her misapprehension that the issue at hand was "only about the tape," Campbell has seen clear to order us to disappear a 1,400-word article—words composed and published by Gawker Media editorial employees—simply because Hulk Hogan didn't like it. > A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal. > But the portion of the order compelling us to remove the entirety of Daulerio's post—his words, his speech—is grossly unconstitutional. We won't take it down.

spriggan3 10y ago

> I suppose the notion of press freedom has changed between 1991 and Gawker's case. Press freedom doesn't mean freedom from being sued by individuals. Gawker's case has nothing to do with Press freedom. It isn't the american government who is suing Gawker.

icebraining 10y ago
While it doesn't protect them from being sued, it's not true that the First Amendment and press freedom has nothing to do with civil cases. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1b0cef82-2385-42a0-9631-8a3846724833 http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1b0cef82-2385-...

Spooky23 10y ago

You can sue anyone for anything. It's easy when an angry billionaire is paying the bill.

brc 10y ago

This is two private parties slugging it out. The government adjudicates but does not have a specific law that is broken. That is by definition freedom of the press. The danger is when the government starts setting laws that the press has to follow, or has the power to drag the press through kangaroo courts where the process is the punishment. When you have an essentially private dispute between parties like this it is interesting but has little relevance to actual freedom of the press. The only issue would be if the government of the day started weighing in on the case.