3 ms·

A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. For example, it's illegal to film what's happening inside a slaughterhouse[1]. Some people

A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. For example, it's illegal to film what's happening inside a slaughterhouse[1]. Some people are getting into trouble for filming cops[2]. I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo. One can easily imagine a next generation of laws that will make it illegal to publish leaked documents, like those that Snowden or Wikileaks released. [1] http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaughterhouse/ http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaug... [2] http://www.copblock.org/1281/filmingpolice/ http://www.copblock.org/1281/filmingpolice/

golemotron 10y ago
I expect [1] to be overturned. Courts have pushed back against [2] every time it comes up.
misnome 10y ago
> I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo. Isn't the alternative that every journalistic publication is above the law? If it were/is a free speech issue, then presumably it will be overturned on appeal?
1024core 10y ago
> A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spycams in public bathrooms?
- Taek 10y ago
  So we destroy an entire news outlet conglomeration? That strikes me as overreach. There's clearly a privacy question here, but the video is real, the words are real, and the events actually happened. I've never seen the video. I don't care. Hogan's sex life is not interesting to me. People already masterbate to him. I'm struggling to understand how a large amount of damage was dealt.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    They weren't destroyed because they did it. It happened because after the fact they refused to admit their fault and make up for it, and instead continued insisting they were in the right.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
paul_f 10y ago
Strawman. Nobody is suggesting this is illegal. But you should get your arse sued off civilly if you do this.

golemotron 10y ago

I expect [1] to be overturned. Courts have pushed back against [2] every time it comes up.

misnome 10y ago

> I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo. Isn't the alternative that every journalistic publication is above the law? If it were/is a free speech issue, then presumably it will be overturned on appeal?

1024core 10y ago

> A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spycams in public bathrooms?

Taek 10y ago
So we destroy an entire news outlet conglomeration? That strikes me as overreach. There's clearly a privacy question here, but the video is real, the words are real, and the events actually happened. I've never seen the video. I don't care. Hogan's sex life is not interesting to me. People already masterbate to him. I'm struggling to understand how a large amount of damage was dealt.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  They weren't destroyed because they did it. It happened because after the fact they refused to admit their fault and make up for it, and instead continued insisting they were in the right.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

paul_f 10y ago

Strawman. Nobody is suggesting this is illegal. But you should get your arse sued off civilly if you do this.