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

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#71

Post by moistgorilla »

rco8786 wrote: post #26
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…

Is it being created without his knowledge better or wore than what happened in the fappening? I'm not sure what your comment is trying to say. Both things sound pretty horrendous.

While both are horrendous, I think we can say that having intimate photos of you taken without your knowledge being spread is worth than having photos you took being spread. The reason being that in the first case your rights to privacy were actually violated twice.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#72

Post by CydeWeys »

natrius wrote: post #65
belorn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Gawker case is an instance where the force of law is required as a disincentive.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#73

Post by Crito »

the_ancient wrote: post #18
Analemma_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, no thank you. I've liked some of Jerry's opinion pieces in the past, but I think he's way off the mark here, especially with this: > The causes they enunciate are tarnished, just for being in their mouths. That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the judicial sphere. As I said below, people who want bad to enshrine bad precedent will pick the most unsympathetic targets in the cou…

Miranda did not create any rights, only the requirement that the government inform you of your rights...

If the government is required do something for you ("inform you of your rights", in this case), then wouldn't it be reasonable to say you say that you have the right to that service?

Miranda created the right to have the government inform you of your rights.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#74

Post by hodgesrm »

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)

Frankly setting a precedent that allows people to sue for egregious exposure of private data seems long overdue. I hope this is another step in developing a body of law that protects privacy in the digital age. Next up is negligent exposure of financial and health data.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#75

Post by spriggan3 »

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 ?

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#76

Post by hartpuff »

zaroth wrote: post #64
hartpuff wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Isn't the succinct term (since at least Pam Anderson) "sex tape"?

I wrote it the way I did, which I don't think was that bad, because out of about 40 posts, two used the term (which I had never heard of before in this sense) "nonconsensual porn", and they were both by the same poster.

What does non-consensual mean in this sense BTW? Does it mean someone is recorded without their consent, or a site publishes someone's video without their consent?

And the downvotes keep coming, and for sp332, for simply agreeing and suggesting an alternative, and for my reply to sp332, so it's clearly not simply about how I phrased the question. Some weird people here.

Edit: Hahaha. Someone's upset, downvoting every post of mine here.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#78

Post by natrius »

CydeWeys wrote: post #72
natrius wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Gawker case is an instance where the force of law is required as a disincentive.

The American people are more creative than you give us credit for. The Supreme Court strikes down popular laws all the time, and somehow we've managed to carry on.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#79

Post by PascalsMugger »

Analemma_ wrote: post #5
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)

Exactly. Looking around on Twitter and in the comments sections of other sites reporting on this verdict, I'm seeing a worryingly positive response based on nothing but negative feelings about Gawker. Yes, Gawker sucks, but never forget that there are bad people who want to pick easy targets for example cases in order to set bad judicial precedent, and this is some truly atrocious precedent.

What exactly is the atrocious precedent here? This wasn't speech about someone, it wasn't noteworthy speech of someone's actions, it was speech about someone's very private actions. In many states it's illegal to record a private conversation unless both people consent, and yet somehow making a sex tape without someone's knowledge and releasing is a worse precedent?

There is no slippery slope here. Free speech advocates should look in another castle.

Re: Hulk Hogan awarded payout over Gawker sex tapes

#80

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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 First Amendment ramifications?

Distributing naked pictures of someone without their consent has never been legal. The fact that they were taken in the cameraman's home is no defense. This is no different than a frat boy putting a hidden camera in the frathouse bathroom before a party and then distributing pics of freshman girls with their pants down.

Post reply on HN