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

51–60 of 176 posts

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#51

Post by sp332 »

hartpuff wrote: post #28
fweespee_ch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent, keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem for an already-struggling ecosystem. (Although in fairness, this incident is particularly egregious, especially as they disobeyed a judge's order to take down the video) 1) Nonconsensual…

> Nonconsensual porn Can't you find a better term? This makes it sound like a rape video.

I agree. How about "unauthorized"?

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#52

Post by stcredzero »

krapp wrote: post #36
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.

This may be one of the few times a "First They Came" reference on the internet wasn't completely inane.

Give it time...

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#53

Post by polishninja »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #6
minimaxir wrote: post #4

Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent, keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem for an already-struggling ecosystem. (Although in fairness, this incident is particularly egregious, especially as they disobeyed a judge's order to take down the video)

At best this is an argument for tort reform*. Gawker's actions here are not defensible. Edit: meaning improved protections against baseless lawsuits that could be damaging regardless of their merit. The simple way to protect your news company from being sued for releasing leaked sex tapes is to simply not release leaked sex tapes, which I think will be the major takeaway from this case.

On the topic of tort reform, I'd suggest the documentary Hot Coffee. It obviously has a bias but it really made an impact on how I view these large settlements.

These huge sums are required to set an example and not just be a fine. If he only won $500,000, then then next time a similar situation arises it just becomes a math question. Can they can earn more than $500,000 by releasing and paying the "fine".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#54

Post by skuhn »

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…

I agree that the Anthony Weiner case is similar, but there's also a very different argument in play with publishing those photos.

A public official exposed behaving inapropriately or hypocritically is much more obviously a matter of public interest -- to the people who elected him based on a different representation of values -- than exposing the inner workings of an entertainer's sex life. Gawker tried to stake their claim on the public interest basis in this case and lost. In my opinion, that decision was correct.

I also wish that sex scandals didn't have power over political careers because of the perverse incentives that it creates for politicians to behave in certain ways.

Weiner also could have sued over his photos, and possibly should have been able to win his case. To me, if he does the job that he's elected to do then it shouldn't matter what he does on his own time. With the caveats that those actions are within the law, and also that I did not and would not ever vote for him.

Even if Weiner had sued it wouldn't have changed the course of his scandal, based on what we've seen in other cases. Look how long it has taken for Hogan's case to be adjudicated, and it has hardly wiped the memory of his sex tape from the public consciousness.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#55

Post by MajesticHobo »

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.

That's not a nice summary at all. It's a (mildly amusing) inane quip that also happens to miss the point.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#56

Post by hartpuff »

fweespee_ch wrote: post #33
hartpuff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nonconsensual porn Can't you find a better term? This makes it sound like a rape video.

Suggestions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn > The term is also often misused to describe non 'revenge' scenarios, including nonconsensual pornography distributed by hackers or by individuals seeking profit or notoriety I'm not the only one that uses it that way :/

I stand by my opinion of the term, it's completely inane, but after risking a search on it, 'only' the first 8 out of 10 results were rape-related porn videos, so it seems to be also used by major sites in the sense you used it.

It's the first time I've ever seen the term. Since it seems to be (somehow) a relatively established term for this kind of thing, I guess I'm wrong to ask you to not use it, but I think it's meaning is confusing, and I'd probably just call it a private sex tape.

And I realize it's not cool to mention downvotes, but to the people who downvoted the simple question/request I made about this... seriously?

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#57

Post by draw_down »

MajesticHobo wrote: post #55
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.

That's not a nice summary at all. It's a (mildly amusing) inane quip that also happens to miss the point.

I dunno, I think it hits the nail on the head. They're such pieces of shit, but that's not always a good reason to be happy someone lost a lawsuit.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#58

Post by CydeWeys »

minimaxir wrote: post #4

Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent, keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem for an already-struggling ecosystem. (Although in fairness, this incident is particularly egregious, especially as they disobeyed a judge's order to take down the video)

> this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money

You're eliding some very important details. The precedent it sets is for individuals whose private sex tapes have been published against their will to sue media companies for massive amounts of money.

If I made a private sex tape, and it were somehow published, I'd want to be able to sue for it too. Whatever happened to tech nerds being in favor of privacy? I don't want the government snooping on my phone calls and I don't want media shit-tards spreading my sex tapes. It all falls under the umbrella of privacy to me.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#60

Post by MajesticHobo »

draw_down wrote: post #57
MajesticHobo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a nice summary at all. It's a (mildly amusing) inane quip that also happens to miss the point.

I dunno, I think it hits the nail on the head. They're such pieces of shit, but that's not always a good reason to be happy someone lost a lawsuit.

I don't like Gawker either. But seeing people praise this decision merely because Gawker sucks, while casually dismissing other concerns, including the serious First Amendment ramifications, makes me very uneasy.
Post reply on HN