Regardless of arguments about the limits of freedom of speech there is a right of privacy for the citizen. It’s the government that is supposed to justify any invasion of privacy, and in fact why its doings should not be public.
If we only extend the right of privacy to “nice” people we don’t have a democracy.
The media often has this double standard, though. When Sir Anthony Meyer stood against Margaret Thatcher, the Conservatives wanted the media to reveal that Meyer had a mistress. But they declined because he was a nice guy. Had he not been, it would have been all over the papers.
But the law is not the media, or should not be, and should take into account only the offence, not the victim.
Gawker did more than take a picture; they published the actual video to their rather large audience. Other news sites might have alluded to the video, or even published a still from the video proving its actual existence, but gawker published a significant portion of the video.
Freedom of speech is not absolute; it is limited by restrictions for public safety (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater), libel and slander (telling untruths), and revealing private matters in public, which is the case we have here. Now the press has an exception in the case of public figures, and therefore has more latitude, but that exception is not absolute either - it is limited by journalistic value. The public may have a legitimate interest (not to be confused with the public being interested) in the fact that Hogan had an affair, that it was taped, and that there was a scandal around that. But that interest does not extend to actually seeing the sex acts, and that’s the difference. So Gawker crossed the line when they did more than just reference the tape, and instead actually published it.
I see this as the end of Gawker, and I won’t shed a tear. I admit I appreciate some of their subsidiary publications, like Gizmodo and Jalopnik, but I expect those will be spun off or sold off to pay for the judgment, and many of the writers will find a new employer. As for the gossip columnists employed directly for Gawker and Nick Denton himself, I hope this gives them all pause to rethink their morals and their careers, and make better choices in the future.
This was years ago. On Apple’s current stance with the phone backdooring, i was truly surprised that Apple took the correct stance and i do fully support them on this.
I agree. I’ve been a fan of the sci-fi/fantasy/science-fact branch io9 for years now, though it’s not quite as good since they were made a sub-site of Gizmodo. Lifehacker also puts out some useful info from time to time. It’s definitely not all trash under the Gawker umbrella, and I do hope the better branches get spun off or bought out.
…though I must sheepishly admit to sometimes reading Jezebel and the main Gawker page for s and giggles. It’s comical to see how many insulting ways the writers can find to describe Trump. I just take whatever they tell me with a bucket of salt and crosscheck, crosscheck, crosscheck.
I never heard of that one. I do know there was a massive reorganization last year. Quite a few sites got closed and others were shuffled around. Io9 used to be its own branch, now it’s under the Gizmodo arm. I’m guessing Fleshbot got the axe.
i09 would be the key quality thing. Gizmodo has plenty of good, they’ve been publishing some quality science writing between the two for a while now in addition to their regular thing. Jalopnik is still a very entertaining car site. Lifehacker is self help porn for yuppies, but there’s occasionally some very useful stuff about cooking or practical things like PC building. Jezabel is a weird thing. There’s some good writers there but the concept is so hamstrung by rage bating and things that are odds with a supposedly feminist site that I ignore it till that quality writing gets filtered through somewhere else on the web. Kotaku is… I’m not sure what Kotaku is. For a while its looked like it wanted to be i09, but with teh gamerz. And also sexy cosplay photos and weird obsessions with Japan (cause teh gamerz). It doesn’t make a lot of sense. The main Gawker page. Blerg. Just as an example since the Hulk hogan trial started they’ve regularly been posting snarky links to watch the trial to their main page. Now that they’ve lost they seem curiously silent on the subject. For their political coverage I’ve been sort of fascinated by it. Its all curiously light weight, panicky and some how all twisted to attack Hillary and laud Bernie. Often in ways that make zero sense. Its sort of like watching a car crash. I’d prefer to look away but I feel like I can’t. And then the commentariate at most of their sites is basically a fucking rat hole.
They sold it off a long while ago. Supposedly to make Gawker more respectable.
It’s my understanding under Florida state law even if they appeal they still need to pay out some/all of the judgment immediately. So yeah, I think they are fucked.
It’s a shame, too. Despite Gawker’s sometimes vile content and Kinja being the world’s shittiest discussion platform, there’s many great writers and child sites that will undoubtedly and undeservedly suffer from this. If anybody should suffer it’s that pillock Nick Denton for letting this happen. It was wildly irresponsible, arrogant, and completely unnecessary. I hope those extra hits were worth it.
Can’t find it now*, but I recall reading something not long ago about Kinja being, for the most part, oversold and underdeveloped, so to speak, written by outgoing Gawker staff (which may be the reason it hits Kinja). In any case, certainly Gawker, in part or whole, is worth more than $115M?
*Didn’t find it, but I did find this little gem from the last time Gawker got got:
The company promotes truth and understanding through the pursuit of the real story — and supports, finances and defends such independent journalism. That is and remains its mission, and this story was in violation of it.
We pride ourselves on pushing boundaries and know that every story requires a judgment call. There was strong internal disagreement on whether the right judgment was made. I believe it was not and could not defend it.
Oh, they’re still around, at the same URL, doing what they always did (posting about the mainstream pr0n industry, NSFW), just under different ownership and not half as good as when Lux Alptraum was the editor.
As to Gawker’s fight for their “right” to post Hulk Hogan sex tapes, in April, 2013, a judge ordered them to take down their original post, and they refused. In the hearing, Gawker’s lawyer argued that the judge shouldn’t make Gawker take down the post because the Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon Papers to be published, and it was all the same principle – First Amendment! Free Speech!
(IMO, if a sex tape of Hulk Hogan, taken without his permission, has any journalistic value, I’m at a loss for what that might be. Gawker’s story line at the time was, “Look! He may be a celebrity but he’s just like any other ordinary guy when he has sex!”)
The primary jerks in this story are “Bubba the Love Sponge” and his wife, who invited Hogan into her bed, video recorded the act, and then released the video. That was the invasion of privacy. Hogan settled with them for $5,000. The $115,000,000 verdict against Gawker is outrageous in comparison.
Gawker is not an especially sympathetic defendant, but the amount of the award is unsupportable.
@failquail & @anon62122146 - don’t forget that framing the latest case as “Apple vs. FBI” is a dangerous distraction. It is really “FBI vs. every user of encryption” … it’s just that Apple is the first one with good enough encryption and refusing to roll over on their customers.
I was thinking about the absurdity of the judgment, but it may not be entirely without merit. It basically cost Hogan his career with the revealing of his racist comments in the video. He went from being incredibly marketable to toxic. Yes, he’s a scumbag for those comments, but it really did hurt him financially in a significant way.
This is really one of those cases where whomever wins, the public loses.
There is absolutely no public interest served by allowing people to take and distribute nudie pics of private citizens without their consent. This situation is no different from a frat boy who puts a hidden camera in the frathouse bathroom before a party, then distributes pics of freshman girls with their pants down.
The judgment against Gawker was 100% correct and just. People keep making vague but dire pronouncements about chilling free speech, but I’ve yet to see any actual arguments besides “Hogan deserved it for saying racist shit”–and now where’s your free speech?
Totally. It’s more like some intersection of “people who understand math vs. the FBI” and “people who don’t want to live under a surveillance regime that would make the Stasi cream themselves vs. the FBI.”
I could have it all wrong, but Gawker seems to be making the case that it’s ok to post a sex video, against a person’s consent, so long as they’re famous. On it’s surface, that really seems like a bullshit defense. Isn’t it currently illegal to post revenge porn, and other such media, without a person’s consent? I don’t see what the difference is.
If something was already illegal in the first place, no “speech” is being suppressed that wasn’t already.
s and giggles. It’s comical to see how many insulting ways the writers can find to describe Trump. I just take whatever they tell me with a bucket of salt and crosscheck, crosscheck, crosscheck.
