5 ms·

You can have a balance of press freedom and privacy of individuals, and even the US does in libel and slander laws, as well as e.g. (more recently) revenge porn

You can have a balance of press freedom and privacy of individuals, and even the US does in libel and slander laws, as well as e.g. (more recently) revenge porn legislation. The issue here, though, is not whether Gawker's behavior should have been protected speech, but whether it's concerning for a documentary about Gawker to be canned by a studio controlled by a large company which had another aspect of its business harmed by the behavior of the subject of that documentary.

adriancr 6y ago
Media should not be controlled by large entities but you can't say free speech for documentary producers but not for owners. Deciding not to continue the documentary is Apple's right to free speech. If anything you can push for legislators to apply anti monopoly laws to media and have companies split off.
- DavidSJ 6y ago
  Apple has that right. But sometimes the way rights are exercised can still be concerning to others.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  I agree. Short of regulating quasi-monopolies/antitrust and illegal content, media companies - regardless of their size - shouldn't be interfered with. If Apple pays to produce content, then Apple can decide to stop paying or shelf it (in accordance with any contracts they entered). To me, Apple's own streaming offering - which at least for now has sizable competition from giants such as Disney and Netflix and Amazon as well as small producers on youtube and elsewhere - is quite different from "social media" companies with their defacto "marketplaces of ideas" interfering with legal free speech of regular people, which I see with far more concern. It is also quite different to their quasi monopolist walled garden otherwise known as the App Store. Apple really is just a minor player in the TV space right now, and far more concerning is the Disney/Fox/Hulu behemoth, where we're slowly heading into antitrust territory.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

adriancr 6y ago

Media should not be controlled by large entities but you can't say free speech for documentary producers but not for owners. Deciding not to continue the documentary is Apple's right to free speech. If anything you can push for legislators to apply anti monopoly laws to media and have companies split off.

DavidSJ 6y ago
Apple has that right. But sometimes the way rights are exercised can still be concerning to others.
rndgermandude 6y ago
I agree. Short of regulating quasi-monopolies/antitrust and illegal content, media companies - regardless of their size - shouldn't be interfered with. If Apple pays to produce content, then Apple can decide to stop paying or shelf it (in accordance with any contracts they entered). To me, Apple's own streaming offering - which at least for now has sizable competition from giants such as Disney and Netflix and Amazon as well as small producers on youtube and elsewhere - is quite different from "social media" companies with their defacto "marketplaces of ideas" interfering with legal free speech of regular people, which I see with far more concern. It is also quite different to their quasi monopolist walled garden otherwise known as the App Store. Apple really is just a minor player in the TV space right now, and far more concerning is the Disney/Fox/Hulu behemoth, where we're slowly heading into antitrust territory.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]