Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#121

Post by microcolonel »

whateveridunno wrote: post #101
spriggan3 wrote: post #75

So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?

Personally, I think that while Gawker wasn't right to release the tape, fining them $115 million isn't right either. $115 million could easily sink Gawker entirely. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the place but it's a dangerous precedent to set for press freedom if a single editor's single bad decision can take down an entire site. Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.

While I respect that conclusion in general, I think that Gawker in particular has done a lot of sadistic and mean "reporting" which serves no public good. Them being sunk seems almost a public good in my opinion.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#122

Post by clevernickname »

mc32 wrote: post #100
spriggan3 wrote: post #75

So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?

Probably because they feel like they have to close ranks and defend a profession they see as being maligned. For them there is no grey, only black and white. All or nothing. For many other people there are degrees of freedom and rights. Their fear is that if they concede on this point, what else will they have to concede and will their profession back them when they are in the same position, but for more noble reason…

Being maligned by whom? "Journalists" get to control the narrative on literally any topic they choose. They had to fuck up really hard to get the rest of the press to report against them, and even then this case isn't receiving anywhere near the coverage it deserves.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#123

Post by tunesmith »

tptacek wrote: post #20

I think @Popehat summed this up nicely: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/710972390566563845 First they came for Gawker, and I did not speak out. Because fuck Gawker.

What is your actual argument in terms of how this is a threat to freedom of speech? Apologies if I am misreading your meaning.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#124

Post by clevernickname »

tptacek wrote: post #24
tomp wrote: post #17

I'm not sure how I feel about the verdict (freedom of speech vs privacy), but I'm really happy that the media sexist bias was exposed. It was really distasteful how they were criticising and condemning "The Fappening" (i.e. female stolen porn) while happily participating in the reverse (Hulk Hogan's male stolen porn).

Bollea's "porn" wasn't "stolen". It was created without his knowledge and circulated by the person who created it, which is how it leaked. That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back. It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact, probably will) be revers…

I rarely agreed with your opinions but I never expected you to succumb to this level of doublethink.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#125

Post by venomsnake »

spriggan3 wrote: post #75

So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?

Yes. It is freedom of the press. Leaking the tape to the public should be punishable, but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape.

On a personal level I would love to see Gawker the company fold - but punishing media for publishing true facts is troubling. After all Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener also had their privacy invaded. The idea of a media outlet being sued (although with good chance of winning the case) could hurt coverage of worthier targets.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#126

Post by DanBC »

venomsnake wrote: post #125
spriggan3 wrote: post #75

So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?

Yes. It is freedom of the press. Leaking the tape to the public should be punishable, but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape. On a personal level I would love to see Gawker the company fold - but punishing media for publishing true facts is troubling. After all Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener also had their privacy invaded. The idea of a media outlet being sue…

They are not being punished for broadcasting the tape.

They are being made responsible for harm that results.

These are different things.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#127

Post by tunesmith »

tptacek wrote: post #34
bbanyc wrote: post #32

Both sides in this case were utterly contemptible. I would have found that Gawker invaded Hogan's privacy and awarded Hogan one dollar in damages, leaving everyone unhappy but the lawyers. Invasion of privacy, despite its questionable origins, is now generally recognized as a valid tort and outside of the protections of the First Amendment. No new precedent is being set here.

I don't think Bollea is a particularly good person, but I'm not clear on how his conduct in this controversy was "contemptible". For the 1A concern here, consider the Anthony Weiner case, in which indisputably private photos of Weiner were also published. I don't like that they were (I think he could have been just as effectively ejected from public life with good writing) but it's concerning to think that he'd have…

So... are you saying that if a celebrity talks openly, even boastfully, about their sex life, then it is free speech to publish a sex tape that was recorded without their consent?

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#128

Post by makomk »

whateveridunno wrote: post #101
spriggan3 wrote: post #75

So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?

Personally, I think that while Gawker wasn't right to release the tape, fining them $115 million isn't right either. $115 million could easily sink Gawker entirely. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the place but it's a dangerous precedent to set for press freedom if a single editor's single bad decision can take down an entire site. Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.

They ignored a previous court injunction requiring them to take the video down and bragged about it. This should sink Gawker entirely.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#130

Post by icebraining »

makomk wrote: post #128
whateveridunno wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think that while Gawker wasn't right to release the tape, fining them $115 million isn't right either. $115 million could easily sink Gawker entirely. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the place but it's a dangerous precedent to set for press freedom if a single editor's single bad decision can take down an entire site. Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.

They ignored a previous court injunction requiring them to take the video down and bragged about it. This should sink Gawker entirely.

That injunction was found unconstitutional by the appeals court.
Post reply on HN