No, sorry, that’s just garbage.
The bar for libel is the same for everybody, no matter how famous or infamous the person you are defaming. You don’t get to make false claims that harm somebody’s reputation just because they’re famous. Libel isn’t journalism, and we are not discussing libel.
Neither, in the case of Hogan or Thiel, are we talking about the reporting of information vital for public good and health of a democratic society. We are talking about the invasion of privacy and deliberate revelation to the public of facts that are none of the public’s concern, and which do not improve our society for their having been revealed.
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting, but you seem to be suggesting that fame negates – or at least severely restricts (“very high bar”) any right to privacy. So let’s nail down how “public” you think a “public figure” has to be before they no longer have that right.
Question One: How famous do you think, for example, an actor needs to be before it’s ok for “journalists” to release nude pictures of that person?
a) Zero. Anybody should be able to publicly release nude pictures of anybody, because freedom of speech.
b) It’s ok if they starred as an extra in one production.
c) …they starred in a supporting or lead role in one production.
d) …they starred in a supporting or lead role at least five productions, or have won at least one major award.
e) …they’ve won multiple awards for their work, or their movies always make, like at least $100M.
f) They are, like, Tom Hanks or Meryl Streep.
g) There is no level of fame that gives anybody the right to publicly release nude photos of a person.
Question Two: If you answered Question One with anything other that “g”, how do you justify that answer rather than those below it, and how are you not an asshole?
Public figures have the right to private lives, and that bar is the same as it is for any non-public figure. If the details of your private life do not impact the public sphere, they are not the public’s concern, and the public has no right to know about them. It doesn’t matter how famous you are, or what party you vote for, or whether you are, in fact (like Thiel), a repugnant excuse for a human being. If the details of their private lives do not impact the public sphere, everybody’s private life gets to be private.
Really? I would suggest that we have seen a greater impact from a wider array of more insightful investigative journalism in the last 18 months than at any time since Watergate, and certainly of a quality and scope and effectiveness not seen since before 9/11. But if you can offer convincing statistical evidence of a “chilling effect” on “journalism everywhere” that began in March 2016, I’d like to see that.
If Gawker had been engaged in genuine journalism, journalism that served the public good by providing it with information necessary for the betterment of society as a whole, journalism that made any effort to live up to the responsibilities of a free press or to offer the true societal benefits of free press, then that would be a relevant insight. But this isn’t the Pentagon Papers, and he didn’t sue the Washington Post. The free press has not been silenced. This is sex tapes. Free press doesn’t have the right to release sex tapes. Society isn’t helped by vile and harmful invasions of privacy. Like I said, the problem isn’t that a billionaire used his billions to hold Gawker to account; the problem is that nobody else could.
Comparing Thiel’s financing of Hogan’s suit against Gawker to Moore suing AL is an absurd false equivalence. The most compelling evidence for that claim is that Hogan won his suit, and Moore will not.
