11 ms·

Gawker posted a sex tape of Hulk Hogan online, without his consent, and refused to take it down. It was a tape that the Gawker editor who posted it had to admit

Gawker posted a sex tape of Hulk Hogan online, without his consent, and refused to take it down. It was a tape that the Gawker editor who posted it had to admit in court had no news value. It's pretty disgusting to hear WaPo hand-wring over rape culture without addressing the fact that Gawker's non-consensual posting of two people's sex act is the very definition of rape culture. Peter Thiel is an unlikeable human for many reasons, but let's not forget that Gawker also outed him as gay without his permission. WaPo skips over that too. It sounds like the outcome of Hogan v. Gawker is that news media - and especially the ream of online-only "news" sites that have sprouted over the past decade - are far more likely to fact check their stories before they publish stories that only serve to humiliate and degrade their subjects. Sexual predator or not, slow coverage of the R. Kelly debacle can hardly be pinned on Hulk Hogan holding Gawker accountable for their actions.

rasz 9y ago
>the outcome of Hogan v. Gawker is Lets not forget techdirt being sued by "email" fraud Shiva Ayyadurai with money won by Thiel lawyer.
tptacek 9y ago
I agree: my attitude towards the Thiel/Hogan/Gawker fiasco was, as someone else put it, first they came for Gawker, and I said nothing, because fuck Gawker. But what's your point? The Gawker fiasco absolutely did spook other media outlets and has made them nervous about publishing negative stories about other media figures. That's what WaPo is observing here.
- jameskegel 9y ago
  This is a flimsy comparison
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I don't see how. DeRogatis has decades of experience as a music writer, including at Rolling Stone and The Chicago Tribune. His story ran in Buzzfeed. It ran there, and not in a more mainstream publication, because it directly attacked a media personality with deep pockets. The headline is false, like I said downthread: the story would have run somewhere else. But the story seems entirely valid.
- jgon 9y ago
  The point is that trying to claim that being held to account for posting the illegally obtained sex tape of a celebrity which has no actual news value outside of the lurid value of watching a public figure have sex is literally, and I cannot stress that enough, literally nothing like the act of posting a well researched article about the damaging actions of a public figure, engaged in something that is possibly illegal. Trying to in someway make people feel bad for Gawker by somehow saying that their entirely self-imposed destruction is making it hard for actual news with real value to be published is super disingenuous. If other news outlets got nervous about publishing legitimate investigations into the actions of public figures, that's on them. The protections the press receives in America are robust, and the Gawker case was so newsworthy because it was an actual instance of the press "losing" for once in one of these case, and only because their actions were incredibly egregious. In summary, the article tries to drum up some sort of phony sympathy for the actions of Gawker by somehow linking worthwhile reporting with the muck-racking dreck that Gawker traded in and ultimately was killed by.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I don't think the author of this piece wants you to feel sympathy for Gawker, but rather to recognize that the post-Gawker media landscape is different and more difficult for reporters. And again: this story reports that we don't even know what was in DeRogatis' original piece. Buzzfeed's legal cut things out of it. When we say "a well-researched piece like this is fine post-Gawker", we should recognize that we don't know if DeRogatis' original reporting even survived the editing process.
    - jgon 9y ago
      How is it more difficult for reporters? If you are not posting actual libelous material obtained illegally, which has no value to the public, you are in the clear. If you are doing those things, then yeah I guess the Gawker case should make you think twice. Like is this a bad outcome? What do I need to recognize here? That finally yellow journalism online is held to the same standard as in print? Oh no, the horror!
      - 9y ago
- soneca 9y ago
  My version is more like: First (well, not actually first, as newspapers get sued all the time) they came for Gawker, and I said nothing, because Gawker was actually wrong and I believe justice was made.
  - austenallred 9y ago
    That saying works much better for genocide than it does actual crimes. > First they came for the child molesters Doesn't have the same ring to it
    - 0x8BADF00D 9y ago
      Then they came for the DNMs. I sure can't wait to use the fast lane powered by Verizon!
    - saint_fiasco 9y ago
      Sure it does. Say it like this: First they came for the child molesters... Then the murderers... Then the drug dealers... ... Then the drug abusers... Then the 'soft on crime' dissidents... Then the 'rule of law' activists... We have laws that protect the rights of child molesters and terrorists to have fair trials because those laws protect us as well.
      - austenallred 9y ago
        I suppose, but if "come after" means "try in a court of law and assign a reasonable punishment in accordance with the crime committed" then I guess I'm OK with them "coming after" almost anyone.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  > them nervous about publishing negative stories But thats a good thing. We are witnessing checks and balances in play. The Fifth Estate is necessary, whether we like it or not - power always corrupts, and media have power that we, the people, do not. How else should things continue: totally unchecked?
  - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
    > But thats a good thing. That isn't a good thing. > We are witnessing checks and balances in play. No. What we are witnessing is a billionaire getting his way because he has money. It's a billion putting a pall over the "fifth estate". > The Fifth Estate is necessary, whether we like it or not Sure, but that is what is being attacked and intimidated. That isn't a good thing. > How else should things continue: totally unchecked? I'd rather lean towards "totally unchecked" than "controlled". I'd rather politicians, celebrities, elite be worried about the fifth estate than the fifth estate being intimidated by the politicians, celebrities, elite.
    - mmjaa 9y ago
      I'd like the Fifth Estate to have its powers curtailed by the people, who are truly the ones to suffer at the hands of all of these levels of irresponsibility.
      - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
        You like the Fifth Estate's free speech curtailed? > who are truly the ones to suffer at the hands of all of these levels of irresponsibility. The people are the ones to suffer? No. The people suffer when their free speech rights are attacked. Holy christ, the anti-free speech crusaders are in force today.
        ryanwaggoner 9y ago
        Their free speech isn't being curtailed. Free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you want without repercussions or consequences. People are down voting you here, I guess that means your free speech is being attacked as well?
- Goladus 9y ago
  The Gawker fiasco absolutely did spook other media outlets and has made them nervous about publishing negative stories about other media figures. Whine all they want. What needs to happen now, if the big media companies want to defend their constitutional protections, is that some media company that isn't Gawker and doesn't behave in the same recklessly malicious manner needs to win a case. Thereby confirming that the actual details of the Gawker trial are in fact relevant and so long as they act like sincere, responsible journalists who treat their 1st amendment protections with a modicum of respect and humility, they don't have to worry about a jury slapping them with a $140 million punishment.
  - pcwalton 9y ago
    > What needs to happen now, if the big media companies want to defend their constitutional protections, is that some media company that isn't Gawker and doesn't behave in the same recklessly malicious manner needs to win a case. Which costs millions. Who should foot the bill for that? > Thereby confirming that the actual details of the Gawker trial are in fact relevant and so long as they act like sincere, responsible journalists who treat their 1st amendment protections with a modicum of respect and humility, they don't have to worry about a jury slapping them with a $140 million punishment. They only have to worry about spending millions on lawyers to argue the cases! It's not just that media outlets are afraid of losing the cases. As a media outlet, if you have to argue the case in front of a jury, you've already lost. It's better from a financial risk point of view to just not publish anything that might get you sued. The issue with the Gawker case is that it has encouraged rich celebrity plaintiffs with little to lose to sue media outlets, who stand to suffer significant financial losses even if they win the case. R. Kelly is willing to lose a million dollars for a chance to save his reputation, which is worth far more than that to him. A media outlet isn't willing to lose a million dollars to a piece that'll earn far less than that in revenue. Hence the media self-censors.
    - Goladus 9y ago
      > Which costs millions. Who should foot the bill for that? Presumably, the world-famous multimedia behemoth willing to assume the risk of getting sued in order to publish newsworthy truth. In this case, it'll be Buzzfeed, since they're the organization with the courage to publish the story. And they ought to have the support of people who believe in their cause, the way Thiel believed in Bollea's. > As a media outlet, if you have to argue the case in front of a jury, you've already lost. At some point defending against defamation has to become part of the cost of doing business for a world-famous multimedia behemoth. Buzzfeed stands to profit a great deal at the expense of R Kelly by publishing such a salacious story. Not only do they profit for the story itself, but an exclusive like that could grow their permanent audience. > The issue with the Gawker case is that it has encouraged rich celebrity plaintiffs with little to lose to sue media outlets. Is this true, though, or is it just the desired narrative? How do we know that the Hogan decision will have made a difference on whether R Kelly decides to sue? How do you assert that engaging in a protracted civil litigation is "nothing to lose" for a celebrity? Celebrity net worth pegs R Kelly at $150 million. A 2015 investment from NBCUniversal put Buzzfeed's valuation at 1.5 billion. > Hence the media self-censors. Media self-censors all the time. Big media companies are incredibly risk-averse. A sob story about a journalist enduring the intense pain of having to shop a story around to several different publications until finally one picked it up, wouldn't be news except that the media companies all want to frame themselves as poor victims of the Hogan decision, which they hate because it means they must be ever so slightly less reckless when destroying the lives of their subjects.
sigmar 9y ago
> It's pretty disgusting to hear WaPo hand-wring over rape culture WaPo isn't making the comparison. The author of the Buzzfeed piece is- >“Gawker came up in a lot of those conversations,” DeRogatis said
a2tech 9y ago
The sex tape was provided to them legally by someone (bubba the love sponge) that had the right to give it away. It was video taped at his home with hogans permission and was bubbas property. Thiels lawyers was perusing multiple suits at the same time as the hogan suit-as part of their strategy of bankrupting gawker. It worked. Gawker felt like they were in the right but resource exhaustion got them in the end.
- halflings 9y ago
  By the same argument, we can consider that "revenge porn" (wide sharing of an ex's naked pictures/videos online) is totally fine, as the person sharing the pictures had them in their posession legally.
  - sldoliadis 9y ago
    For me, the person to be sued is not the news source (Gawker), but the person who posted it to begin with (Bubba). By the same token, the problem with revenge porn isn't the ex having the videos, it's them distributing them. I'm not saying the Gawker/Hogan case represents journalism at its finest. But to me, protecting free speech is so important that it's better to err on the side of protecting it rather than restricting it. You could say Gawker had no serious news story there, but what happens when it's grey? The government has no business having discussions about what is meritorious or not meritorious news. One could also argue that the damage to Hogan was about as clear as the meritoriousness of the Gawker story, so in the end it doesn't matter. It's literally the Streisand effect, played out on a larger, more serious scale. None of us would remember anything about this episode if Hogan and Thiel hadn't pursued this. I also think that the difference between your typical ex and a celebrity is critical. When you are seeking celebrity status professionally, I think the expectation of privacy has to be reduced. I hate to say that, and mean no ill-will toward celebrities, but I think that has to be expected. That doesn't mean anything goes in terms of celebrity privacy, but I think it does mean that when you have a case of freedom of the press versus privacy, if you're dealing with a celebrity, the burden gets shifted further to the celebrity to prove wrongdoing, pretty far. I think it's unfair to pursue money by attracting attention to yourself, and the complain when that happens. Again, Hogan going after Bubba? No problem with that. Going after Gawker? Huge problem. I have no affection toward Gawker, but the Hogan-Thiel suit (or more appropriately, the decision) set a dangerous, dangerous precedent, because now the onus is on the speaker to prove their speech is "worthy" of protection.
skybrian 9y ago
Should "holding Gawker accountable" mean forcing the company into bankruptcy? It's possible to agree that Gawker went too far while disagreeing with the penalty.
- sfifs 9y ago
  absolutely it should. Media generally has been able to do thing like drive Princess Diana to her death by hounding with paparazzi without consequences. It's good to put fear of law into the more salacious segments of the media.
  - skybrian 9y ago
    If the goal is to "teach them a lesson", it seems like a suitably chastened Gawker that actually survived would learn more than anyone else. They can't learn much if they're not around anymore.
ebbv 9y ago
The UK has had strong anti-libel laws that had a chilling effect on the media there for decades. We are only now seeing that there have been pedophilia rings at the highest levels of the rich and powerful in the UK, which had never been reported on despite apparently it being an open secret. I wouldn't be so quick to say this is a good thing. Gawker is a shitty tabloid but it isn't the first one, there have been plenty of others. Tabloids have been publishing stuff famous people would rather not be published for decades. It's a price of fame and a price of a free press.

rasz 9y ago

>the outcome of Hogan v. Gawker is Lets not forget techdirt being sued by "email" fraud Shiva Ayyadurai with money won by Thiel lawyer.

tptacek 9y ago

I agree: my attitude towards the Thiel/Hogan/Gawker fiasco was, as someone else put it, first they came for Gawker, and I said nothing, because fuck Gawker. But what's your point? The Gawker fiasco absolutely did spook other media outlets and has made them nervous about publishing negative stories about other media figures. That's what WaPo is observing here.

jameskegel 9y ago
This is a flimsy comparison
- tptacek 9y ago
  I don't see how. DeRogatis has decades of experience as a music writer, including at Rolling Stone and The Chicago Tribune. His story ran in Buzzfeed. It ran there, and not in a more mainstream publication, because it directly attacked a media personality with deep pockets. The headline is false, like I said downthread: the story would have run somewhere else. But the story seems entirely valid.
jgon 9y ago
The point is that trying to claim that being held to account for posting the illegally obtained sex tape of a celebrity which has no actual news value outside of the lurid value of watching a public figure have sex is literally, and I cannot stress that enough, literally nothing like the act of posting a well researched article about the damaging actions of a public figure, engaged in something that is possibly illegal. Trying to in someway make people feel bad for Gawker by somehow saying that their entirely self-imposed destruction is making it hard for actual news with real value to be published is super disingenuous. If other news outlets got nervous about publishing legitimate investigations into the actions of public figures, that's on them. The protections the press receives in America are robust, and the Gawker case was so newsworthy because it was an actual instance of the press "losing" for once in one of these case, and only because their actions were incredibly egregious. In summary, the article tries to drum up some sort of phony sympathy for the actions of Gawker by somehow linking worthwhile reporting with the muck-racking dreck that Gawker traded in and ultimately was killed by.
- tptacek 9y ago
  I don't think the author of this piece wants you to feel sympathy for Gawker, but rather to recognize that the post-Gawker media landscape is different and more difficult for reporters. And again: this story reports that we don't even know what was in DeRogatis' original piece. Buzzfeed's legal cut things out of it. When we say "a well-researched piece like this is fine post-Gawker", we should recognize that we don't know if DeRogatis' original reporting even survived the editing process.
  - jgon 9y ago
    How is it more difficult for reporters? If you are not posting actual libelous material obtained illegally, which has no value to the public, you are in the clear. If you are doing those things, then yeah I guess the Gawker case should make you think twice. Like is this a bad outcome? What do I need to recognize here? That finally yellow journalism online is held to the same standard as in print? Oh no, the horror!
    - 9y ago
soneca 9y ago
My version is more like: First (well, not actually first, as newspapers get sued all the time) they came for Gawker, and I said nothing, because Gawker was actually wrong and I believe justice was made.
- austenallred 9y ago
  That saying works much better for genocide than it does actual crimes. > First they came for the child molesters Doesn't have the same ring to it
  - 0x8BADF00D 9y ago
    Then they came for the DNMs. I sure can't wait to use the fast lane powered by Verizon!
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    Sure it does. Say it like this: First they came for the child molesters... Then the murderers... Then the drug dealers... ... Then the drug abusers... Then the 'soft on crime' dissidents... Then the 'rule of law' activists... We have laws that protect the rights of child molesters and terrorists to have fair trials because those laws protect us as well.
    - austenallred 9y ago
      I suppose, but if "come after" means "try in a court of law and assign a reasonable punishment in accordance with the crime committed" then I guess I'm OK with them "coming after" almost anyone.
mmjaa 9y ago
> them nervous about publishing negative stories But thats a good thing. We are witnessing checks and balances in play. The Fifth Estate is necessary, whether we like it or not - power always corrupts, and media have power that we, the people, do not. How else should things continue: totally unchecked?
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > But thats a good thing. That isn't a good thing. > We are witnessing checks and balances in play. No. What we are witnessing is a billionaire getting his way because he has money. It's a billion putting a pall over the "fifth estate". > The Fifth Estate is necessary, whether we like it or not Sure, but that is what is being attacked and intimidated. That isn't a good thing. > How else should things continue: totally unchecked? I'd rather lean towards "totally unchecked" than "controlled". I'd rather politicians, celebrities, elite be worried about the fifth estate than the fifth estate being intimidated by the politicians, celebrities, elite.
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    I'd like the Fifth Estate to have its powers curtailed by the people, who are truly the ones to suffer at the hands of all of these levels of irresponsibility.
    - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
      You like the Fifth Estate's free speech curtailed? > who are truly the ones to suffer at the hands of all of these levels of irresponsibility. The people are the ones to suffer? No. The people suffer when their free speech rights are attacked. Holy christ, the anti-free speech crusaders are in force today.
      - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
        Their free speech isn't being curtailed. Free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you want without repercussions or consequences. People are down voting you here, I guess that means your free speech is being attacked as well?
Goladus 9y ago
The Gawker fiasco absolutely did spook other media outlets and has made them nervous about publishing negative stories about other media figures. Whine all they want. What needs to happen now, if the big media companies want to defend their constitutional protections, is that some media company that isn't Gawker and doesn't behave in the same recklessly malicious manner needs to win a case. Thereby confirming that the actual details of the Gawker trial are in fact relevant and so long as they act like sincere, responsible journalists who treat their 1st amendment protections with a modicum of respect and humility, they don't have to worry about a jury slapping them with a $140 million punishment.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  > What needs to happen now, if the big media companies want to defend their constitutional protections, is that some media company that isn't Gawker and doesn't behave in the same recklessly malicious manner needs to win a case. Which costs millions. Who should foot the bill for that? > Thereby confirming that the actual details of the Gawker trial are in fact relevant and so long as they act like sincere, responsible journalists who treat their 1st amendment protections with a modicum of respect and humility, they don't have to worry about a jury slapping them with a $140 million punishment. They only have to worry about spending millions on lawyers to argue the cases! It's not just that media outlets are afraid of losing the cases. As a media outlet, if you have to argue the case in front of a jury, you've already lost. It's better from a financial risk point of view to just not publish anything that might get you sued. The issue with the Gawker case is that it has encouraged rich celebrity plaintiffs with little to lose to sue media outlets, who stand to suffer significant financial losses even if they win the case. R. Kelly is willing to lose a million dollars for a chance to save his reputation, which is worth far more than that to him. A media outlet isn't willing to lose a million dollars to a piece that'll earn far less than that in revenue. Hence the media self-censors.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    > Which costs millions. Who should foot the bill for that? Presumably, the world-famous multimedia behemoth willing to assume the risk of getting sued in order to publish newsworthy truth. In this case, it'll be Buzzfeed, since they're the organization with the courage to publish the story. And they ought to have the support of people who believe in their cause, the way Thiel believed in Bollea's. > As a media outlet, if you have to argue the case in front of a jury, you've already lost. At some point defending against defamation has to become part of the cost of doing business for a world-famous multimedia behemoth. Buzzfeed stands to profit a great deal at the expense of R Kelly by publishing such a salacious story. Not only do they profit for the story itself, but an exclusive like that could grow their permanent audience. > The issue with the Gawker case is that it has encouraged rich celebrity plaintiffs with little to lose to sue media outlets. Is this true, though, or is it just the desired narrative? How do we know that the Hogan decision will have made a difference on whether R Kelly decides to sue? How do you assert that engaging in a protracted civil litigation is "nothing to lose" for a celebrity? Celebrity net worth pegs R Kelly at $150 million. A 2015 investment from NBCUniversal put Buzzfeed's valuation at 1.5 billion. > Hence the media self-censors. Media self-censors all the time. Big media companies are incredibly risk-averse. A sob story about a journalist enduring the intense pain of having to shop a story around to several different publications until finally one picked it up, wouldn't be news except that the media companies all want to frame themselves as poor victims of the Hogan decision, which they hate because it means they must be ever so slightly less reckless when destroying the lives of their subjects.

sigmar 9y ago

> It's pretty disgusting to hear WaPo hand-wring over rape culture WaPo isn't making the comparison. The author of the Buzzfeed piece is- >“Gawker came up in a lot of those conversations,” DeRogatis said

a2tech 9y ago

The sex tape was provided to them legally by someone (bubba the love sponge) that had the right to give it away. It was video taped at his home with hogans permission and was bubbas property. Thiels lawyers was perusing multiple suits at the same time as the hogan suit-as part of their strategy of bankrupting gawker. It worked. Gawker felt like they were in the right but resource exhaustion got them in the end.

halflings 9y ago
By the same argument, we can consider that "revenge porn" (wide sharing of an ex's naked pictures/videos online) is totally fine, as the person sharing the pictures had them in their posession legally.
- sldoliadis 9y ago
  For me, the person to be sued is not the news source (Gawker), but the person who posted it to begin with (Bubba). By the same token, the problem with revenge porn isn't the ex having the videos, it's them distributing them. I'm not saying the Gawker/Hogan case represents journalism at its finest. But to me, protecting free speech is so important that it's better to err on the side of protecting it rather than restricting it. You could say Gawker had no serious news story there, but what happens when it's grey? The government has no business having discussions about what is meritorious or not meritorious news. One could also argue that the damage to Hogan was about as clear as the meritoriousness of the Gawker story, so in the end it doesn't matter. It's literally the Streisand effect, played out on a larger, more serious scale. None of us would remember anything about this episode if Hogan and Thiel hadn't pursued this. I also think that the difference between your typical ex and a celebrity is critical. When you are seeking celebrity status professionally, I think the expectation of privacy has to be reduced. I hate to say that, and mean no ill-will toward celebrities, but I think that has to be expected. That doesn't mean anything goes in terms of celebrity privacy, but I think it does mean that when you have a case of freedom of the press versus privacy, if you're dealing with a celebrity, the burden gets shifted further to the celebrity to prove wrongdoing, pretty far. I think it's unfair to pursue money by attracting attention to yourself, and the complain when that happens. Again, Hogan going after Bubba? No problem with that. Going after Gawker? Huge problem. I have no affection toward Gawker, but the Hogan-Thiel suit (or more appropriately, the decision) set a dangerous, dangerous precedent, because now the onus is on the speaker to prove their speech is "worthy" of protection.

skybrian 9y ago

Should "holding Gawker accountable" mean forcing the company into bankruptcy? It's possible to agree that Gawker went too far while disagreeing with the penalty.

sfifs 9y ago
absolutely it should. Media generally has been able to do thing like drive Princess Diana to her death by hounding with paparazzi without consequences. It's good to put fear of law into the more salacious segments of the media.
- skybrian 9y ago
  If the goal is to "teach them a lesson", it seems like a suitably chastened Gawker that actually survived would learn more than anyone else. They can't learn much if they're not around anymore.

ebbv 9y ago

The UK has had strong anti-libel laws that had a chilling effect on the media there for decades. We are only now seeing that there have been pedophilia rings at the highest levels of the rich and powerful in the UK, which had never been reported on despite apparently it being an open secret. I wouldn't be so quick to say this is a good thing. Gawker is a shitty tabloid but it isn't the first one, there have been plenty of others. Tabloids have been publishing stuff famous people would rather not be published for decades. It's a price of fame and a price of a free press.