4 ms·

Well, Gawker is based in the United States, where there's plenty of federal case law saying it is not illegal for a public figure. "Borderline" criminal isn't

Well, Gawker is based in the United States, where there's plenty of federal case law saying it is not illegal for a public figure. "Borderline" criminal isn't criminal and Gawker didn't operate from the United Kingdom or a jurisdiction where this isn't allowed, it operated in the United States, where the courts have been very clear on this.

lr4444lr 9y ago
In some jurisdictions, it probably soon will be[0]. [0] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2725/amendment/a https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2725/amendm...
Natsu 9y ago
It's not that simple. There's not much of a public interest angle in Hogan's sex life, so he still had a claim for invasion of privacy, same as anyone else who had non-consensual porn of them stolen and knowingly published. Also, Gawker was actually taken down for defying the court's orders. Even if they knew they were right, that was a dumb move. You sort that out on appeal, rather than defying the courts. That is absolutely illegal, regardless of whatever defenses they might have had for invasion of privacy. Gawker then compounded that by saying that they would have also posted stolen child pornography of anyone not under 4 in their deposition, as you can see on video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0p4V1-va00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0p4V1-va00 So you're not going to get much sympathy from normal people for a pedo-friendly, non-consensual porn publisher going down the toilet.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  The reason Hulk Hogan didn't want the tape disseminated was because he was heard to be using racial epithets: n-gger.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    I won't defend that, it was wrong. I would note that he apologized for that afterwards. Any normal person would not want non-consensual sex videos of them posted on the internet, even without that, however. That's the thing, though, more than one person can be wrong here. He said a hurtful word in the heat of the moment which is morally wrong, but not illegal. Gawker made a deliberate decision to put themselves above the law and defy a court order. It's not a big surprise which of these would lose in a court of law.
- muglug 9y ago
  > It's not that simple. There's not much of a public interest angle in Hogan's sex life, so he still had a claim for invasion of privacy I agree it was sufficiently murky to warrant some sort of monetary award. But hundreds of millions? You can't have it both ways – he's either a public figure, in which case some invasion of privacy is defendable, or he's a private individual, in which case that amount of money is in no way justified. > Gawker then compounded that by saying that they would have also posted stolen child pornography A Gawker writer made a stupid joke during a long deposition. Nothing in Gawker's history indicates they would have done so.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    AJ Daulerio was a Gawker editor, not a writer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.J._Daulerio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.J._Daulerio I don't see anyone laughing or smiling in the clip around 1:25 in the video I linked and a court deposition is not a place one would normally tell jokes. I certainly never joked back when I gave a deposition, I read tons of depositions on Groklaw and I can't remember any jokes in them, and I don't really think stolen, non-consensual sex tapes are particularly funny, either. In short, I really can't find any evidence in favor of them joking and their bad conduct, like defying the court, points to poor judgement and weighs against any credit I might want to give them. We're in full agreement about it being stupid, though. > Nothing in Gawker's history indicates they would have done so. Gawker's choice to defy court orders and publish stolen, non-consensual sex tapes means that I cannot give them the credit I would give to a normal person here in much the same way I would not be inclined to trust a drink handed to me by Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski, or Harvey Weinstein, as compared to one from a normal person. You're arguing a number of points I haven't actually made. I can explain why the court did what they did, but if you think the law should be otherwise, you would have to write your representatives to tell them how you want to better protect media companies from contempt of court charges, punitive awards, and publishing non-consensual sex tapes or what have you. As for the point on the monetary award, that was because of contempt. As I said, the merits of invasion of privacy stopped mattering at that point because they shot themselves in the foot with a bazooka. But I have to say, I don't understand your point about why a private person shouldn't be entitled to a large award for having their sex life exposed to internet voyeurs. Awards like this are made for the purpose of discouraging others and are expressly punitive. The court wanted to put their head on a stake so that nobody would be dumb enough to try that in the future.
eksu 9y ago
I was listening to Mike Rowe's podcast this morning, episode 93, "As Long As It's Legal". It was about how just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. Just because something is legal also doesn't mean that they are taking "journalistic risks". The world is better without Gawker.

lr4444lr 9y ago

In some jurisdictions, it probably soon will be[0]. [0] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2725/amendment/a https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2725/amendm...

Natsu 9y ago

It's not that simple. There's not much of a public interest angle in Hogan's sex life, so he still had a claim for invasion of privacy, same as anyone else who had non-consensual porn of them stolen and knowingly published. Also, Gawker was actually taken down for defying the court's orders. Even if they knew they were right, that was a dumb move. You sort that out on appeal, rather than defying the courts. That is absolutely illegal, regardless of whatever defenses they might have had for invasion of privacy. Gawker then compounded that by saying that they would have also posted stolen child pornography of anyone not under 4 in their deposition, as you can see on video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0p4V1-va00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0p4V1-va00 So you're not going to get much sympathy from normal people for a pedo-friendly, non-consensual porn publisher going down the toilet.

wavefunction 9y ago
The reason Hulk Hogan didn't want the tape disseminated was because he was heard to be using racial epithets: n-gger.
- Natsu 9y ago
  I won't defend that, it was wrong. I would note that he apologized for that afterwards. Any normal person would not want non-consensual sex videos of them posted on the internet, even without that, however. That's the thing, though, more than one person can be wrong here. He said a hurtful word in the heat of the moment which is morally wrong, but not illegal. Gawker made a deliberate decision to put themselves above the law and defy a court order. It's not a big surprise which of these would lose in a court of law.
muglug 9y ago
> It's not that simple. There's not much of a public interest angle in Hogan's sex life, so he still had a claim for invasion of privacy I agree it was sufficiently murky to warrant some sort of monetary award. But hundreds of millions? You can't have it both ways – he's either a public figure, in which case some invasion of privacy is defendable, or he's a private individual, in which case that amount of money is in no way justified. > Gawker then compounded that by saying that they would have also posted stolen child pornography A Gawker writer made a stupid joke during a long deposition. Nothing in Gawker's history indicates they would have done so.
- Natsu 9y ago
  AJ Daulerio was a Gawker editor, not a writer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.J._Daulerio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.J._Daulerio I don't see anyone laughing or smiling in the clip around 1:25 in the video I linked and a court deposition is not a place one would normally tell jokes. I certainly never joked back when I gave a deposition, I read tons of depositions on Groklaw and I can't remember any jokes in them, and I don't really think stolen, non-consensual sex tapes are particularly funny, either. In short, I really can't find any evidence in favor of them joking and their bad conduct, like defying the court, points to poor judgement and weighs against any credit I might want to give them. We're in full agreement about it being stupid, though. > Nothing in Gawker's history indicates they would have done so. Gawker's choice to defy court orders and publish stolen, non-consensual sex tapes means that I cannot give them the credit I would give to a normal person here in much the same way I would not be inclined to trust a drink handed to me by Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski, or Harvey Weinstein, as compared to one from a normal person. You're arguing a number of points I haven't actually made. I can explain why the court did what they did, but if you think the law should be otherwise, you would have to write your representatives to tell them how you want to better protect media companies from contempt of court charges, punitive awards, and publishing non-consensual sex tapes or what have you. As for the point on the monetary award, that was because of contempt. As I said, the merits of invasion of privacy stopped mattering at that point because they shot themselves in the foot with a bazooka. But I have to say, I don't understand your point about why a private person shouldn't be entitled to a large award for having their sex life exposed to internet voyeurs. Awards like this are made for the purpose of discouraging others and are expressly punitive. The court wanted to put their head on a stake so that nobody would be dumb enough to try that in the future.

eksu 9y ago

I was listening to Mike Rowe's podcast this morning, episode 93, "As Long As It's Legal". It was about how just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. Just because something is legal also doesn't mean that they are taking "journalistic risks". The world is better without Gawker.