Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes • Hacker News Board

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#61

Post by tzs » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:26 AM UTC

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…

As you noted, good writing should be sufficient in a case like Weiner's to eject him from office. Similarly, in a case like Bollea's, good writing should be sufficient to get to the public all that is newsworthy.

That good writing can mention that the author has seen the photos or videos, and describe them as necessary to support the story.

Of course, if the photos and videos are not published the subject might accuse the publication of lying, but the original publication can show the photos or videos to other publications who can also write stories about them.

In a case like Weiner's, I don't think the public would believe him if it came down to several major newspapers all reporting that they had seen the photos first hand, versus Weiner saying that they are all lying.

If the subject tries to sue a publication over their written story, the photos or videos will be evidence for the defense, and the likelihood of them getting out to the public goes way up. That should provide quite a bit of discouragement of intimidation lawsuits.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#62

Post by imron » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:27 AM UTC

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)

"Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it"

They do deserve it. Not because they are a terrible site, but because of their actions that resulted in this case.

This isn't some random act of happenstance that put Gawker in trouble. It was something brought about entirely by their own actions and decisions.

It's not a bad thing to have a legal precedent that says you cannot post private sex tapes online, without permission, and then refuse to take them down when ordered by the court.

Most people would have agreed with that without needing to be told it by the court.

I guess however there was enough financial incentive for Gawker to keep the tape up even after being ordered to take it down, and if that's the bed you're going to make, no-one will feel sorry for you when you have to lie in it.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#63

Post by imron » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

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.

It's an inaccurate summary because no-one "came" for Gawker. Gawker did this to themselves.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#64

Post by zaroth » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:29 AM UTC

hartpuff wrote: post #56

fweespee_ch wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn't downvote, but if you want to avoid them you could try using slightly different wording. E.g. sympathizing that a better term isn't readily available, rather than words which some will read as unnecessary criticism and or sounding exasperated.

Like, "I wish there was a better term for this, it makes it sound like a rape video." Actually it's hard to find exactly the right succinct term...

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#65

Post by natrius » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:30 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #38

tptacek wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sweden recently created a new law to explicit punish those who distribute sexual videos and images of a person without their consent. They don't distinguish if the images was stolen, created without the victims knowledge, or even created with consent. The law makers recognize the damage that non-consenting distribution cause.

Constitutions are created to kill popular, reasonable laws. There are plenty of disincentives for bad behavior that don't require the force of law.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#66

Post by slg » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:36 AM UTC

MajesticHobo wrote: post #60

draw_down wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are the legitimate First Amendment ramifications here? Gawker published a sex tape of Hogan. And this wasn't a Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian "maybe they leaked it themselves" style sex tape. This was a "security camera footage, he might not have even known he was being recorded" sex tape. That isn't an issue of freedom, it is an issue about sexually victimizing someone.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#67

Post by imron » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

MajesticHobo wrote: post #60

draw_down wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What serious First Amendment ramifications are these?

The First Amendment doesn't give you free reign to say whatever you like whenever you like, and there are already limitations on the First Amendment with regards to things like obscenity and speech that appeals to prurient interests:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Posting a private sex tape without permission is not likely to pass the Miller test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#68

Post by hartpuff » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #51

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.

I agree. How about "unauthorized"?

Unauthorized is certainly better than non-consensual, particularly in a sex-related context, but I would also even question the word porn.

I know it's commonly used as in 'revenge porn' but is it 'porn' when people record themselves having sex for private use? Seems to me it trivializes takes away from the issue, which is an invasion of privacy.

In fact don't know exactly what Gawker showed, but if the content was pornographic they would presumably be responsible, as all porn publishers are, for complying with record keeping under 18 USC 2257. An impossibility in this case.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#69

Post by Crito » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:43 AM UTC

MajesticHobo wrote: post #60

draw_down wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gawker wasn't whining about the First Amendment when it was female celebrities whose tapes were leaked.

This is a good outcome in every possible respect.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#70

Post by sesutton » Sat, Mar 19, 2016, 2:47 AM UTC

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…

The way I interpreted it was that their isn't a free speech angle to either.

>That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back.

According to Tampa police they think the tape was stolen by an employee of Bubba the Lovesponge[0]. The only essential difference I can see is that the photos of the female celebrities were created with their knowledge, which I don't think is much of a difference at all.

[0] http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/50653538-story