Childs Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 This is a good breakdown of the issue from the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-stakes-in-hulk-hogans-gawker-lawsuit As someone who is a reporter but doesn't have much sympathy for either party involved, I'm torn on this one. I do think celebrities try to have it both ways--capitalizing on gossip and then screaming privacy when it suits them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Yeah this is like trying to justify Plessy v. Ferguson. Just because an asshole judge made a ruling don't make it right. That is a way, way over the top comparison. And the protection of the First Amendment is a very important thing. Any limits on speech, especially for a news organization, should be very narrowly crafted. You never know when something that is similar might produce very important news that it's imperative for us to hear (imagine, for example, that Hogan was a politician caught using the n-word on camera in a sex tape - you'd want to know that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Yeah this is like trying to justify Plessy v. Ferguson. Just because an asshole judge made a ruling don't make it right. That is a way, way over the top comparison. And the protection of the First Amendment is a very important thing. Any limits on speech, especially for a news organization, should be very narrowly crafted. You never know when something that is similar might produce very important news that it's imperative for us to hear (imagine, for example, that Hogan was a politician caught using the n-word on camera in a sex tape - you'd want to know that). There is ways to report and show some being a racist without releasing a whole sex tape. That's a horrible argument. Freedom of speech is great, but freedom of privacy is another thing that is also very important. Just because it's newsworthy that a celebrity had sex, does not mean that a news company can just released a sex tape. That's crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Yeah this is like trying to justify Plessy v. Ferguson. Just because an asshole judge made a ruling don't make it right. That is a way, way over the top comparison. And the protection of the First Amendment is a very important thing. Any limits on speech, especially for a news organization, should be very narrowly crafted. You never know when something that is similar might produce very important news that it's imperative for us to hear (imagine, for example, that Hogan was a politician caught using the n-word on camera in a sex tape - you'd want to know that). There is ways to report and show some being a racist without releasing a whole sex tape. That's a horrible argument. Freedom of speech is great, but freedom of privacy is another thing that is also very important. Just because it's newsworthy that a celebrity had sex, does not mean that a news company can just released a sex tape. That's crazy. First, they released pieces of a sex tape, not the whole thing. The appellate court opinion quote above distinguishes the two specifically. And you absolutely might need to show a piece of a sex tape to convey something newsworthy. Simply reporting "we saw this" is going to get called bullshit in a "pics / video or it didn't happen" culture. The Hogan case is fairly frivolous, and I think you could theoretically try to draw a line between this sex tape and ones that are more "important" - but that's always a hard line to draw, and I don't like courts getting to decide what is newsworthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 imagine, for example, that Hogan was a politician caught using the n-word on camera in a sex tape - you'd want to know thatSure, if he was a politician. But he's not. Public officials and people in positions of great power are the only group of people whose private lives and opinions should be fair game for scrutiny like this, because of the power they wield over everyday citizens. Not just some wrestler/actor/reality TV star/aging has-been. The public has zero right to know anything about his personal life that he doesn't specifically choose to disclose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 imagine, for example, that Hogan was a politician caught using the n-word on camera in a sex tape - you'd want to know thatSure, if he was a politician. But he's not. Public officials and people in positions of great power are the only group of people whose private lives and opinions should be fair game for scrutiny like this, because of the power they wield over everyday citizens. Not just some wrestler/actor/reality TV star/aging has-been. The public has zero right to know anything about his personal life that he doesn't specifically choose to disclose. Did people have a right to know he used steroids? That's his "private life." But him being a steroid abuser was absolutely news, and important news given his stance on "training, saying your prayers, and eating your vitamins." If we had footage of Bill Cosby committing one of his crimes... that would be news too. Same idea. I get it, in this case they are publicizing something with somewhat minimal news value. But draw me a line. If he's profiting off an image that's bullshit, people have a right to know about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Did people have a right to know he used steroids? That's his "private life." But him being a steroid abuser was absolutely news, and important news given his stance on "training, saying your prayers, and eating your vitamins." No, I never did think that the steroid controversy was a newsworthy issue for public consumption. They're private citizens, it's not a real sport, it's nobody's business. If we had footage of Bill Cosby committing one of his crimes... that would be news too. Same idea. No, different idea, because the Cosby deal is about accusations of criminal activity in which he attacked other people. It affects much more than just Bill himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted March 26, 2016 Report Share Posted March 26, 2016 So how much of the argument that folks who think Gawker was justified are making has some roots in you just not liking Hulk Hogan for whatever reason? Honestly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoS Posted March 26, 2016 Report Share Posted March 26, 2016 I am not sure what America's laws are regarding hate speech, so this might be wrong, but I do not see any similarity between what happened with Bill Cosby and Hogan. Bill Cosby raped multiple women. He committed a crime on those women. This is more like if Cosby had been recorded in a very intimate moment ranting about how all Indians are cow-worshipping dotheads, or whatever slur some of you use against us, and then had that tape released without his consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted March 26, 2016 Report Share Posted March 26, 2016 I also have no idea how the Bill Cosby stuff even entered into this conversation. Bill Cosby is accused of multiple criminal acts. If he had been recorded during any of that, it would be evidence in a criminal case. Hulk Hogan didn't do anything illegal, there is absolutely no basis of comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted March 27, 2016 Report Share Posted March 27, 2016 I also have no idea how the Bill Cosby stuff even entered into this conversation. Bill Cosby is accused of multiple criminal acts. If he had been recorded during any of that, it would be evidence in a criminal case. Hulk Hogan didn't do anything illegal, there is absolutely no basis of comparison. Because Jingus argued that what happens in the bedroom of celebrities is irrelevant, full stop. Sometimes it is. And frankly, it doesn't even need to rise to the level of Cosby's crimes (admittedly a weak analogy, but someone tried to compare this case to Plessy v. Ferguson earlier in the thread) to be absolutely newsworthy and of value to report on and show, based on the situation. The point is that restrictive laws on speech potentially edge out very valuable speech. It's why we protect even somewhat frivolous speech, to avoid chilling valuable speech in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 27, 2016 Report Share Posted March 27, 2016 Because Jingus argued that what happens in the bedroom of celebrities is irrelevant, full stop.I seriously have to add the disclaimer "unless it's an act of felonious sexual assault"? Come on. That's obviously not even the same category of thing that we're talking about. Criminal activity is newsworthy; private events between consenting adults who have every right and assumption of privacy are not newsworthy. And never in the history of the fucking planet has the leak of any celebrity sex tape ever been "valuable speech". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted March 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2016 I also have no idea how the Bill Cosby stuff even entered into this conversation. Bill Cosby is accused of multiple criminal acts. If he had been recorded during any of that, it would be evidence in a criminal case. Hulk Hogan didn't do anything illegal, there is absolutely no basis of comparison. Because Jingus argued that what happens in the bedroom of celebrities is irrelevant, full stop. Sometimes it is. And frankly, it doesn't even need to rise to the level of Cosby's crimes (admittedly a weak analogy, but someone tried to compare this case to Plessy v. Ferguson earlier in the thread) to be absolutely newsworthy and of value to report on and show, based on the situation. The point is that restrictive laws on speech potentially edge out very valuable speech. It's why we protect even somewhat frivolous speech, to avoid chilling valuable speech in the future. The Plessy reference wasn't trying to equate a celebrity sex tape with segregation. The point was that you can't use a court decision as moral justification. Courts, including the Supreme Court, get it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheU_2001 Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 Just wanted to mention that I'm 100% pro-Hogan in this whole thing and have been since the story broke. Ditto. He has a right to privacy, didn't know he was being recorded, and shouldn't have something like that surface online, unless it has his permission and the other party's permission as well. Which it clearly didn't. So I'm glad he won, and hope he wins the appeal too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted May 27, 2016 Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 So it turns out that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel was the higher power bankrolling Hogan's lawsuit. IT WAS ME, DENTON! IT WAS ME ALL ALONG! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted May 28, 2016 Report Share Posted May 28, 2016 I've seen some people painting him as some kind of evil super villain but I have no sympathy for Gawker considering what they did to get on Thiel's bad side.. Outing people is not journalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabe Posted May 30, 2016 Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 Exactly why should I care if Hogan has someone bankrolling his lawsuit? It's not illegal, it's not unethical, and it doesn't change the merits of the suit - so how is it a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 It's obviously hard to feel much sympathy for Gawker. But the ultrawealthy secretly funding lawsuits they have no personal stake in for the purpose of bringing down outlets they don't like is a cause for concern. If you sue someone openly, you at least have to worry about sustaining reputational damage and inconvenient/embarrassing facts coming out in discovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Thread Killer Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 So according to what I've read online today, the judge in this case issued her "final judgment" which upheld her original finding. Gawker's reaction was to file for Bankruptcy, but I'm not sure if this was done to protect their assets from Hogan ever seeing any of their actual money? American Bankruptcy law seems to differ from Canadian, so I'm not sure if I understand how this all works now. From what I read, it looks like Gawker can just declare bankruptcy, sell to a new owner, and don't have to pay Hogan anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Gawker filed for protection under Chapter 11, which is roughly equivalent to the Canadian CCAA. What it basically boils down to is that they're trying to keep the creditors off their backs while the appeals process moves forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasFromIowa Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 Martin Short and Maya Rudolph's show had a skit with Cena/Short being cast as Hogan in a Hogan vs Gawker movie and it was very funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 15, 2016 Report Share Posted June 15, 2016 The Gawker fiasco actually made newspapers in France too. Surreal to see the face of Hogan in social/cultural magazines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheU_2001 Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 So glad Hogan won this case. The largest creditor in the Gawker bankruptcy proceedings is Hogan, so even if the bankruptcy goes through or they are sold at auction, someone will have to pay Hogan at least a portion (which will still be a ton of $$$) of what he is owed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Thread Killer Posted June 16, 2016 Report Share Posted June 16, 2016 From what I understand, there is still a fairly good chance the decision will be overturned on appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 Looks like Brother Gawker has been DELETED. http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-operations-next-week-1785455712 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.