1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gawker.com go bye-bye

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by wicked, Aug 18, 2016.

  1. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    As far as I understand it, and I haven't delved too deeply into the minutia of the case, but just because someone famous makes a sex tape doesn't mean you can post it. I think Gawker exposed its own hypocrisy when it criticized people running the nudes that were hacked during Fapgate or whatever the hell it was called and yet ran the Hogan tape. What's the difference except that you like Jennifer Lawrence and think Hogan is a clown? I think most people would agree that hacking people's phones and posting the pictures you find is incorrect. For me, here, the line is easy to draw: If you somehow obtain stolen, private photos or footage of someone, it's probably not a good idea to post it for a mass audience. That's not a right.
    CD Boogie likes this.
  2. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    No hacking here, as far as I'm aware--so that's one pretty big difference. Moreover, whether Gawker is hypocritical has nothing to do with it's First Amendment rights.

    Relatedly, "stolen"=/="private photos or footage." What about "private photos or footage"--again, of a public figure, about a topic that he made a matter of public concern--is less deserving of First Amendment protection than a written description of something a person would rather not make public. Have you never written anything about a subject of story a person would rather not make public? Should he or she be entitled to sue you for it? If so, why not? It's possible the revelation of that "private" material was more harmful to the subject than the publication of the video was to Hogan.
    GBNF and justgladtobehere like this.
  3. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    You're creating an elaborate straw man. This guy's privacy was obviously invaded and to no purposely public end. Dying on that hill along with the rest of the gawker apologists is a lame defense
  4. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    This has been the case for every story ever written.

    The question is whether the public's right to know outweighs the person's right to privacy. In this case, it was decided that the public did not have a right to watch Hulk having sex.

    The idea of this being some kind of slippery slope is kind of humorous. Do we think the whole country is going to lose its marbles because of one ruling that a guy's junk is off limits?
  5. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    I'm not in anyway justifying what Gawker did. Doesn't mean it's not protected by the First Amendment. Not sure what "elaborate straw man" you're even referring to.
  6. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    What does the public have the "right to know"? If mere interest doesn't suffice--the post was certainly popular--how is a court supposed to make that decision? By your standard, all sorts of things could arguably be the basis for liability. Much private information is printed the public has no real need to know.

    And how strong are the privacy interests here, given Hogan repeatedly spoke about his sex life in public?
  7. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    "Spoke about his sex life." Ah, well, then he loses all right to decide if his privates are indeed private.

    Better tell every person who has ever appeared on Howard Stern that they're fair game.
  8. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Now whose going down the slippery slope. Everyone in this thread has been telling us that words and actions have consequences. So if you're a public figure, and if you repeatedly speak about your sex life in public (in some tension with the persona you had previously cultivated), and if you're filmed having sex by your best friend/the husband of the person you're shtuping, and if some publication legally obtains a copy of that tape, and if some publication publishes a brief snippet (nine seconds) of you having sex accompanied by a post with a broader rumination on celebrity and sex more generally, then yes, I think there is a non-obvious question about whether you should be entitled to recover from said publication notwithstanding the First Amendment.

    Let's not forgot that a federal court had said:

    GBNF likes this.
  9. Ice9

    Ice9 Active Member

    All that fame and fortune and Daulerio is still $27,000 in the hole for student loans at 41 years old? Fucking LOSER. That makes my day every time I read that. Underneath all that cocky bravado is just a blocked punt of a human being. Have fun living at home with mom you worthless dope.
  10. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Very good.
    Ice9 likes this.
  11. dirtybird

    dirtybird Well-Known Member

    It seems kind of fitting for Gawker. It wasn't really a big-money operation, but through whatever it did, good and bad, it had the profile of something much larger.
  12. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page