The trial has been fascinating in its own right for the debate around the principle of freedom of the press vs a person's right to privacy, regardless of everyt

The trial has been fascinating in its own right for the debate around the principle of freedom of the press vs a person's right to privacy, regardless of everything that has happened since and the other issues surrounding the trial. Sex tapes seem like a clean cut invasion of privacy, but what if the material in question wasn't a sex tape but a phone call being taped (such as the audio from the tape which revealed that Hogan had made racist comments)? Are the contents of that audio in the public interest? I think everyone who knows what Gawker are like feel like they played with matches and got their fingers burnt. Whether an invasion of privacy is worthy of a $140m fine is questionable, but it will definitely deter other press organisations from making similar moves to what Gawker did. The implications of that for the press aren't necessarily good, but if the guidance is clear that Sex tape are a no no then I think we can find a sensible middle-ground to the whole issue of the freedom of press and the right to privacy.