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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would be more inclined to agree with your assessment if WaPo didn't go out of its way to connect Hulk Hogan's case with Peter Thiel with a very negative tone - one which reeked of "Hulk Hogan was associated with this person who we don't like so therefore the Hulk got what was coming and Gawker was totally justified and thanks to the Big Bad Hulk there's a guy sexually manipulating young women" type of troll-logical train of thought.
Yes, the landscape is different, as it damn well should be.
I think we should stop taking the opinion of one columnist and mapping that to the opinion of an entire news organization, unless that organization is The Economist and obscures who actually wrote the story. This article is columnist Margaret Sullivan's opinion.
I'm certainly not seeing one of those "this article does not reflect the views of the Washington Post" disclaimers. Without that, considering that this was published by the Washington Post on the Washington Post website, "taking the opinion of one columnist and mapping that to the opinion of an entire news organization" is completely warranted.
> Margaret Sullivan is The Washington Post’s media columnist. Previously, she was The New York Times public editor, and the chief editor of The Buffalo News, her hometown paper.[1]
> A columnist is someone who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions. Columns appear in newspapers, magazines and other publications, including blogs. They take the form of a short essay by a specific writer who offers a personal point of view. In some instances, a column has been written by a composite or a team, appearing under a pseudonym, or (in effect) a brand name. Some columnists appear on a daily or weekly basis and later reprint the same material in book collections.[2]
The first quote is from the author's blurb at the bottom of OP's post. The second is straight from the definition of Columnist. I think her disclosure was adequate, as it assumes those reading her story understand that columnists' jobs are to give their own commentary.
[1.] Scroll to the bottom of the OP's article and you'll see the author's name and role at the WaPo.
"I think her disclosure was adequate, as it assumes those reading her story understand that columnists' jobs are to give their own commentary."
We might have to agree to disagree, then. Without an explicit disclaimer (as is common/conventional for opinion pieces like this), the only reasonable assumption here is that - by allowing this article to be published on its website with its branding - the Washington Post endorses this article and the opinions thereof.
None of what you've linked/quoted contradicts that assessment in any way. In fact, it only reinforces it.
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!
Also, as long as you're not being sued in a district that's extremely friendly to the celebrity. And as long as you're not proudly defying a court order[0]. Or butchering your case with ridiculous testimony[1]. And as long as you're not giving the finger to everyone every step of the way so you have powerful enemies who are willing to fund the incredibly long process that will take you down. And as long as you don't realize that the decision sets no precedent as Gawker settled instead of appealing(pretty much any lawyer analysis concluded it was very likely to be struck down on appeal).
But yeah, it just MIGHT happen to you. I believe newspaper writers should also reconsider the threat of lightning strikes, I hear they kill people every year.
Gawker acted like a petulant child that was appalled it was getting punished by an admittedly broken and hypocritical system. This does not mean other people now need to fear the system anymore than they should have feared it before - its brokenness was not magically illuminated by Gawker. There are so many cases of defamation lawfare that anti-SLAPP statutes exist(bonus points not in all states!) and there are several high-prominence FA lawyers who write about the issue and organize a defense for it.
If the newspaper writers were somehow unaware of this before Gawker(including all the small-time blogs which get ruined by defamation lawfare because they cannot afford representation - essentially what happened to Gawker here, just on a larger scale), then they were blind to reality.
Gawker was not destroyed by merely fighting a lawsuit. They were destroyed by losing a lawsuit. They were bankrupted by damages only after the court heard both sides in detail and concluded the plaintiff's claim was legitimate.
Well then you should have your proof in order and let the court decide. That's what a justice system is for.
As someone having the ability to ruin anybody with what you type into a keyboard you should be held to as high a standard as possible.
I worked in this environment years ago and I still feel tainted by association. Imho most of the so called free press has no right to be privileged at all.
What I would call journalism on the other hand should be able to operate unharmed and as free as possible (but as said above) nor unchecked.
.. and thats why its good when those claims that are less valid are called out as such, especially from so-called 'journalistic sources' who should know better if they wish to keep their coveted spot by the throne.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Presumably, the world-famous multimedia behemoth willing to assume the risk of getting sued in order to publish newsworthy truth.
So, therefore, smaller companies that can't afford to pay should decline to publish anything that could offend anyone rich and powerful? Was Susan Fowler, for example, in the wrong for publishing the allegations against Uber earlier this year, because she was not "a world-famous multimedia behemoth"?
> Buzzfeed stands to profit a great deal at the expense of R Kelly by publishing such a salacious story.
Evidently most media outlets disagreed with that calculus. That's why this was a story to begin with.
> Celebrity net worth pegs R Kelly at $150 million. A 2015 investment from NBCUniversal put Buzzfeed's valuation at 1.5 billion.
The cost to R. Kelly: Hundreds of millions of opportunity cost. Millions of dollars in legal fees from victims.
The cost to BuzzFeed (or whoever) of declining to take on a story: A million dollars in opportunity cost, tops?
I'm probably hugely overestimating the benefit for BuzzFeed to try to be as fair to your point as possible, and the numbers still don't add up.
> 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?
The media sure thinks it does, and that is the problem.
> Media self-censors all the time. Big media companies are incredibly risk-averse.
You've correctly identified the issue here.
> 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.
Hold on. R. Kelly is not the victim in this case. If the story is true, the victims are the people R. Kelly abused. It would have been a huge injustice for the story to be self-censored out of existence and for the victims' voices to go unheard! How would you feel about this story if you knew a victim?
We aren't talking about random media vindictiveness. There is a reason why journalists go to so much effort to do this research, often at a personal cost.
It doesn't just criticize Gawker, of course, because it's focused on press freedom in general. That's because press freedom is a right, not some kind of privilege that can be taken away from everybody if one actor "abuses" it.
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?
The fifth estate[1] has apparently existed for a while now, despite my hatred of all "nth estate" nomenclature
Seriously, in the US, if you regard the clergy, nobleman and peasants (the traditional first 3 estates) as the most important power structures, then you need to recalibrate your world view.
I'm so gullible, for a minute there I was like "there's a fifth estate now"? I thought I was going to have to google what this new estate was all about.
Well then, shows how much I know. I'd never heard of them being called that. It seems odd that another type of news agency would be a different estate.
Without an effective "Fifth Estate", we, the people, have no protection whatsoever from power and corruption, because we won't even be informed about it.
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.
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.
The ONLY story here is that thiel ( who doesn't believe women deserve the right to vote ) decided to use his wealth to take down a news organization. There is a dedicated group here who are pushing a lot of lies and trying to frame the debate one way.
You can't say you are for free speech and defend thiel/hogan.
Another interesting tidbit, which is a more important and relevant tidbit than anything you mention:
Thiel and Hogan won the case in court.
They didn't just buy a verdict. They did not abuse the legal system to bully a settlement out of a helpless individual. Both parties had well-funded legal arguments presented in front of a judge and jury. Gawker lost. The jury looked at the facts and Gawker's own testimony and saw a reckless, malicious publisher that would cheerfully disregard any ethical standard they could in the pursuit of clicks and chaos.
Yes. It's a case where you ask 12 people to decide the fate of your existence.
> They didn't just buy a verdict.
They didn't have to.
> Both parties had well-funded legal arguments presented in front of a judge and jury. Gawker lost.
They didn't "lose". They could have kept going with the legal proceedings if they had the money.
> The jury looked at the facts and Gawker's own testimony and saw a reckless, malicious publisher that would cheerfully disregard any ethical standard they could in the pursuit of clicks and chaos.
Have you been a juror? Have you ever been sued?
There is a reason why most lawsuits are settled. Because jurors are highly UNRELIABLE.
Thiel/Hogan had nothing to lose with the verdict. Gawker had everything to lose.
It's why PATENT TROLLS sue companies. Because it is far easier for companies to settle suits than continue with the legal proceedings.
Here's a hint. If thiel really wanted to, he could sue hacker news and bankrupt it.
> malicious publisher that would cheerfully disregard any ethical standard they could in the pursuit of clicks and chaos.
Oh god... So many anti-free speech people here. It's no longer surprising.
I'm a die hard social libertarian and free speech advocate. Your (and the medias) attempts to frame this as a free speech issue is comical, bordering on delusional.
If you want to defend free speech, you'd be better served talking about what's currently going on at college campuses.
It has nothing to do with free speech, it's freedom of the press. Freedom of the press has immense value. Publishing HH's sex tape and all the tabloid garbage, fake news, etc isn't one of them. It's a problem of unlimited freedom. We do curtail freedom of speech with slander laws, just as we curtail freedom of the press with libel laws.
Amazingly, much of the free press in the US have made themselves a liability to society by obfuscating what is truth and what is fiction without giving a second thought as to how detrimental it is to the country. Think Alex Jones and Fox News types. Think weasel words like "people think," "It's been said that," etc. Those are cues that the topic is as best unsubstantiated, at worst an outright falsehood to inspire fear in people for ad revenue. There are similar types on the opposite of the political spectrum. These companies exist to profit off of fear, obfuscation and anger.
The best way to protect yourself? Don't publish shitty tabloid articles. Don't publish shit sex tapes of fucking HH, as if anyone wants to see that. If you are in the business of pushing sleaze and ruining people's lives for profit, piss off.
Journalism's purpose in our society is to tell the population what the powerful people / government don't want them to know. The reason this is useful is because a democratically elected population needs to know what's going on in order to make correct choices come election time. They need to know if their government is corrupt. People don't need to know that Theil is gay or what HH looks like having sex. That's not journalism, that's not useful, that's gossip.
As for this R Kelly business? Everyone knows he's a weirdo. Take it to the authorities if you want to make a difference. If the authorities ignore it and he's actually doing something illegal? Then publish it to force their hand.
> Amazingly, much of the free press in the US have made themselves a liability to society by obfuscating what is truth and what is fiction without giving a second thought as to how detrimental it is to the country. Think Alex Jones and Fox News types.
And the climate nowadays is better than it ever has been for outlets like Infowars. Alex Jones is supported by the president of the United States. Yet it's problematic for people who write well-substantiated, honest pieces on powerful entertainment celebrities like R. Kelly.
The Gawker case did absolutely nothing to hold Infowars to account. It instead had the effect of demonstrating that it can be dangerous to write negative things about entertainment celebrities with deep pockets. Needless to say, with the president of the United States being who he is, it's hard to argue that that particular outcome is a societal benefit.
>It instead had the effect of demonstrating that it can be dangerous to write negative things about entertainment celebrities with deep pockets.
From what I understand, Gawker's two big follies lead to their downfall was:
1. Outing Peter Thiel as gay. Sleazy IMO.
2. Publishing a HH sex tape that was stolen and recorded without HH's permission. (according to HH).
They didn't get in trouble for #1, though it's pretty damn sleazy. They did get in trouble for #2, which they absolutely should have. I would think if some publication published the stolen JLaw pics, they would get sued out of existence too.
They didn't get in trouble for writing negative things about entertainment celebrities. They got in trouble for publishing stolen porn. Also, they would have gotten away with it because HH was running out of money for the lawsuit. That's where Thiel came in. What we almost got was a news publication being able to publish stolen porn because they have deep pockets.
FWIW, the Fairness Doctrine repeal in the 80s is what lead to all these airbags spewing anger for ad revenue. That's an actual free speech issue.
Where did I say I don't believe in free speech? I absolutely believe in free speech.
But if we project your idea further along - that the Fifth Estate should not have its rights impeded, at all, ever, by anyone - then, we get censorship of the people, who - unless they are anointed members of the Fifth Estate, will not have the same assumed powers, ever.
So .. should only a certain 'class' of 'authority' in society have the ability to say what it wants?
The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion.
In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being, whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded.
What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech?
> So .. should only a certain 'class' of 'authority' in society have the ability to say what it wants?
No. Everyone should.
> The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion.
There are principles though.
> In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being
That's why we have free speech. Using your logic, every atheist should be jailed because they hurt another human being.
> whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded.
No they weren't. That's the point.
Anyways, the gawker case has nothing to do with privacy. It has everything to do with a billionaire deciding to take out gawker.
I've never visited gawker. Don't really care about celebrity news. But I do believe in free speech.
And you could say gawker is a terrible sight and still defend their free speech rights.
> What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech?
Free speech of course - especially when it concerns a PUBLIC figure.
Here's the thing. NOTHING ILLEGAL happened despite the hordes here saying so. Hulk Hogan spoke about the sex tape LONG before gawker released it. FOOTAGE of it already had been released by TMZ and other sites. And the sex tape was acquired LEGALLY.
The Judge, who heard all the arguments you and I are ignoring/unaware of, did not agree with your assessment: Gawker was fined a hefty sum as punitive damages, and rather than pay it, they shuttered the company. Good thing they still have those rights, eh?
> The Judge, who heard all the arguments you and I are ignoring/unaware of, did not agree with your assessment:
It wasn't the judge. It was the JURY.
And judges aren't "infallible".
As a matter of fact, appeals court ruled that the judge infringed on the free speech rights of gawker.
"The injunction was quickly stayed on appeal, and was denied in 2014 by the appeals court, which ruled that under the circumstances it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment. Gawker tried to get Judge Campbell to dismiss the case based on that ruling, but the case went to trial."
As I said, I'm not a fan of gawker. But I'm for free speech. Even ugly, offensive, disgusting speech is FREE SPEECH. That's the purpose of free speech. To protect OFFENSIVE speech.
You spam this sub claiming you are for free speech and yet all you have done so far is to peddle anti-free speech rhetoric.
>You spam this sub claiming you are for free speech and yet all you have done so far is to peddle anti-free speech rhetoric.
Nonsense. Nowhere have I said that Gawker shouldn't have had the right of free speech. Just that they should accept responsibility for the consequences of that speech. That they chose not to, just means they're unable to defend their own rights when faced with justice for the harm they actually did cause while exercising that right.
I'm completely okay, for example, with you insulting me with your vitriol - as long as you're prepared to deal with the down votes in a responsible, adult-like manner. That isn't what happened with Gawker - they flaunted the law and demonstrated time and again that they thought they were above the law, "just because".
Alas, all these rights are for naught if we don't have a social system in place to protect them.
I think the billionaire funding of lawyers for a lawsuit was not an attack to free-speech. Not even close. Not even suggestive of such a thing. I think it did not affect the free work of the press as the article suggests. I think it only affected media vehicles abusing its power to earn money at the expense of violating the privacy of an individual.
I believe it is just like when the police arrests a thief robbing a store, it does not affect the right to come and go of the other customers. Not even the ones who are there complaining or protesting against the store.
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?
They went out of business because they did something wrong, and the judge agreed with the plaintiff that they should pay damages. Instead of paying those damages, the people behind Gawker decided - using their own free will - that they would be better off shuttering the site.
None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up. They gambled that HH wouldn't be willing to fight them back, and that the money they made from all the hoo-haw would be enough to keep them in business - but such is life in the free world. Free to win, free to lose: the system is there for both sides of the coin.
The JURY don't have any powers without THE JUDGE, whose ratification of the decision the jury made is the only means by which the law finds force in society. Without the Judiciary, no Jury. That's how the law works.
Gawker gambled on their ability to stay in business while also committing vile acts of hatred using their right to free speech. They lost the gamble. They weren't told "you can't have free speech" - they were told "you caused this amount of damage, by exercising your rights" - and it was Gawker themselves who decided they could not take responsibility for that damage, so they shuttered themselves.
Gawker lost because they flaunted the law, and in spite of having a court order to cease their attacks on an individual, continued regardless. TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES did not flaunt the law, nor were they required to - as they were not the targets of the suit.
"You are anti-free speech": No, you are simply wrong. I'm pro-free speech. I just don't think that its the golden get-out-of-jail card that you think it should be. There are other rights granted us by society; when one set of rights is used to impinge upon another, that is a case for the legal system to administer. You are yet to demonstrate an understanding of this fact: You can say what you want, but if it causes me harm, I also can say what I want - and when a multi-million dollar company goes up against an individual, I'm very glad of the fact that these rights are adjudicated in court.
It's a fine line we walk here. I do think that free speech is being curtailed, but I also would prefer a more civilized society where we can expect a certain level of respect given by default.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. Thiel, Hogan and Gawker are all unpleasant characters. But it's surprising how skewed many of these comments against Gawker. This reflects the heavily anti-free speech sentiment that has taken over the US and the online communities.
I have my suspicions that billionaires are funding the anti-free speech lobbies online
> It worked. Gawker felt like they were in the right but resource exhaustion got them in the end.
It was a billionaire using his money to essentially shutdown a news/media outlet by suing it over and over again. It would be like Bezos suing a small bookstore over and over again to bankrupt them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.