-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Netflix documentary considers the dangerous ramifications of Bollea v. Gawker for the
- Thread starter AuthenticM
- Start date
I mean, Gawker is hardly the thing you look at for the free press, considering the slimy shit they did. Hogan was merely the bullet that killed a much hated site, if it was something that was actually relevant to the public, then yeah, sure, it'd be a worry then, but videos of people being sexually abused? Fuck no, fuck Gawker.
excelsiorlef
Member
If it's Meltzer he's probably honestly a better journalist than a lot of actual journalists
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
You can argue that the punishment was excessive, but Gawker was completely in the wrong here.
Who was abused?
HammerOfThor
Member
Who was abused?
RiverShell
Member
Suzushiiro
Banned
The biggest threat to any freedom, be it the right to bear arms or freedom of speech or freedom of the press, isn't the people who want it suppressed or taken away for their own ends, it's the people who abuse said freedom to hurt people, be it mass shootings, spewing hate speech, or violating peoples' privacy for clicks and giggles.
While the idea of a billionaire with a grudge financially destroying a media outlet is pretty fucked on principle, people generally care more about justice than things like principle and law and rights, so when it happened to Gawker people cheered because Gawker had done so much horrible shit (remember, the sex tape wasn't the only thing that came up in the trial) that they deserved to get financially destroyed. Similarly, if all of the outlets who posted hit pieces on the guy who was brutalized by United Airlines a few months back were sued into oblivion I think people would be cheering there too.
There's plenty of looming threats to the freedom of the press in the era of Trump, don't get me wrong- but Gawker is probably the worst possible outlet to pick as your cause's martyr. And honestly, I don't think there's going to be too much of a chilling effect from that verdict on anyone other than those who think that posting other peoples' sex tapes without their permission and giving a judge the finger when they order you to take it down is a good idea.
While the idea of a billionaire with a grudge financially destroying a media outlet is pretty fucked on principle, people generally care more about justice than things like principle and law and rights, so when it happened to Gawker people cheered because Gawker had done so much horrible shit (remember, the sex tape wasn't the only thing that came up in the trial) that they deserved to get financially destroyed. Similarly, if all of the outlets who posted hit pieces on the guy who was brutalized by United Airlines a few months back were sued into oblivion I think people would be cheering there too.
There's plenty of looming threats to the freedom of the press in the era of Trump, don't get me wrong- but Gawker is probably the worst possible outlet to pick as your cause's martyr. And honestly, I don't think there's going to be too much of a chilling effect from that verdict on anyone other than those who think that posting other peoples' sex tapes without their permission and giving a judge the finger when they order you to take it down is a good idea.
Hmmm...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/james-franco-gawker_b_7816032.html
It's also not like they even exposed Hogan's racism. That part was released much later.
Whether the amount of money is too extreme is arguable, but it's clear to me that Gawker fucked up.
I remember dialing up Aol and going on wrestling sites, man those were the days.
NoFaceNico
Member
In a world where we can have Carlie Hebdo as protected free speech, I'm more than willing to extend that protection to a celebrity sex tape leaking news site.
I feel the ramifications of Gawker going under have already been felt. Had they still been around this election cycle, we would have seen that dossier. They wouldn't have sat on that shit like the rest of the news media.
I feel the ramifications of Gawker going under have already been felt. Had they still been around this election cycle, we would have seen that dossier. They wouldn't have sat on that shit like the rest of the news media.
Didn't Gawker also out a person against their will? Would you also extend protection to that?
Geno Breaker
Banned
Yes, they outed a gay business man. Said man ended up funding Hogan's court case IIRC
TheCochese
Banned
Life comes at you fast...
NoFaceNico
Member
Is it true? Then I don't care.
Is it false? Then he can sue them.
This is America and people here care about other people's sex lives for whatever reason. IIRC, they got flack for it ethics wise but it was by no means illegal.
BUNTING1243
Banned
Hmmm...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/james-franco-gawker_b_7816032.html
It's also not like they even exposed Hogan's racism. That part was released much later.
Whether the amount of money is too extreme is arguable, but it's clear to me that Gawker fucked up.
every single major news site you will ever read will have written horrible, indefensible stories if they've existed long enough.
that doesn't mean freedom of press isn't important.
Camper Van Beethoven
Banned
The freedom of press should not extend to being able to post stolen videos of people having sex against their will.
LordRaptor
Member
I thought I remembered commenting on this here when it happened, and I stand by what I said then.
Charlie Hebdo are protected by a Satire defence.
Finding their satire distasteful is kind of the point; the truth is often brutal and uncompromising, and remains the perogative of fools to point it out.
Posting a celeb sex tape is not satire, so it shouldnt be protected as such.
Its also not of the public interest, even though the public might be interested in it.
I don't need to see a sex tape of Comrade Trumpski being pissed on by Russian hookers; the fact that such a tape (allegedly) exists and is in the possession of a not-exactly-friendly foreign power that could use it to exert influence is in the public interest.
Also a case where "in the public interest" is confused with "things the public might be interested in".
Prurience is not and never has been any form of journalistic safe haven.
Charlie Hebdo are protected by a Satire defence.
Finding their satire distasteful is kind of the point; the truth is often brutal and uncompromising, and remains the perogative of fools to point it out.
Posting a celeb sex tape is not satire, so it shouldnt be protected as such.
Its also not of the public interest, even though the public might be interested in it.
I don't need to see a sex tape of Comrade Trumpski being pissed on by Russian hookers; the fact that such a tape (allegedly) exists and is in the possession of a not-exactly-friendly foreign power that could use it to exert influence is in the public interest.
Also a case where "in the public interest" is confused with "things the public might be interested in".
Prurience is not and never has been any form of journalistic safe haven.
Abilidebob
Member
You don't care someone was outed against their will?
Are you fucking serious right now? Is everything that's not "illegal" fine to you? What the fuck.
Nobody's saying that freedom of the press is unimportant. But so is personal privacy. We need a judiciary to weigh the two against each other, and in the case of the Hogan sex tape said judiciary came to the right decision.
Although it sounds like the damages awarded were excessive. For some reason a financial institution can bilk millions out of the system or a sports team can ignore a coach raping kids and each gets only a slap on the wrist, but when it comes to insulting a former wrestler it's nine figures in damages...
Camper Van Beethoven
Banned
This is the stupidest argument.
Humans arent not entitled to privacy just because theyre celebrities. Nobody was going around celebrating Jennifer Lawrence having photos leaked. She was seem as a victim and nobody would defend people publishing her photos for profit. But because its hulk hogan and hes a joke and a man apparently posting him having sex is just as minor as comic satire?
NoFaceNico
Member
Yes. I don't care. Neither should anyone else care if someone is gay or is outed as such. We should be in a world where such a revelation isn't even newsworthy and jumping on this story isn't helping that.
Why was staying closeted so important to him? Oh right, because he had a wife who was totally kept in the dark about it. What a noble cause, I'm sure she's fine with her own safety taking a backseat while we argue over his right to keep his adultery private.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
The existence of rich, shadowy, powerful figures out to silence and circumvent the news media is not a new development in history. It has always been, and the Free Press is not a thing that has always been. The development of the printing press itself led to a democratization of press and media never-before-seen.
The internet brought about another secret revolution in access to publishing. Gawker as a new independent media outlet and its tactics via sex tapes and outing middle-level execs at competing media companies was not the only development that made people question what was happening. Suddenly unwitting users of social media on both sides of America's poltical divide were being targeted and called out by new media outlets for their tweets and comments. Andy Warhol's promised 15 minutes of fame expanded to include both your reality TV audition... and your Buzzfeed hit piece on that tweet you made out of ignorance, or a HeatStreet callout for the Russian botnet to come harass you suddenly for your long-held stances.
I have a theory that public support for the Free Press is a bit low right now because the general public began to feel they can easily become the next target of the Free Press. Meanwhile, it is the very freedom of literally anyone to start up and publicize their "News Site" with no vetting, backing, or informational double-checks at all that has fed our "fake news" situation. So, in a way, many of us miss the cost of paper and printing as a simple vetting process to keep the nutters and the fly-by-night-propaganda-rags from spewing however much they like of whatever they like as "news."
So although lately I have found myself rallying behind the press and traditional media lately, adding paying subscriptions to both The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, I am a bit unsympathetic towards new internet media companies that expected to single-handedly redraw the lines on what (and who) was acceptable to cover, and not face backlash.
That Trump and company took advantage of this backlash to launch a terrifyingly successful attack against actual news media is not something I feel the management at Gawker should feel just happened around them. Thumbing their nose at old news media standards of media responsibility is part of what fed this erosion.
The internet brought about another secret revolution in access to publishing. Gawker as a new independent media outlet and its tactics via sex tapes and outing middle-level execs at competing media companies was not the only development that made people question what was happening. Suddenly unwitting users of social media on both sides of America's poltical divide were being targeted and called out by new media outlets for their tweets and comments. Andy Warhol's promised 15 minutes of fame expanded to include both your reality TV audition... and your Buzzfeed hit piece on that tweet you made out of ignorance, or a HeatStreet callout for the Russian botnet to come harass you suddenly for your long-held stances.
I have a theory that public support for the Free Press is a bit low right now because the general public began to feel they can easily become the next target of the Free Press. Meanwhile, it is the very freedom of literally anyone to start up and publicize their "News Site" with no vetting, backing, or informational double-checks at all that has fed our "fake news" situation. So, in a way, many of us miss the cost of paper and printing as a simple vetting process to keep the nutters and the fly-by-night-propaganda-rags from spewing however much they like of whatever they like as "news."
So although lately I have found myself rallying behind the press and traditional media lately, adding paying subscriptions to both The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, I am a bit unsympathetic towards new internet media companies that expected to single-handedly redraw the lines on what (and who) was acceptable to cover, and not face backlash.
That Trump and company took advantage of this backlash to launch a terrifyingly successful attack against actual news media is not something I feel the management at Gawker should feel just happened around them. Thumbing their nose at old news media standards of media responsibility is part of what fed this erosion.
adamantypants
Member
WrassleGAF was talkin to Netflix
Abilidebob
Member
Sometimes I remember that not all of Neogaf is composed of human beings.
NoFaceNico
Member
Dude, get off of GAF for once. I mean, goddamn, I know people say this place is an echo chamber but are you really that out of touch to claim no one was celebrating those leaks. Why do you think they kept happening?
AuthenticM
Member
We should also be in a world absent of homophobia and discrimination and violence against gays, and yet we are not.
That is no one's business and certainly not for a corporation to interfere in.
Garbage argument.
They always did shit like that because they knew they could get away with it because normal people could not afford the cost to defend themselves against them or feared to get even more exposed.
Gawker very much deserved what happened to them even if the person that delivered the blow was also a reprehensible POS.
LordRaptor
Member
Very well said.
And if anyone did, they were indemnified from taking actual responsibility thanks to their insurance cover.
Which was why thiel backed Hogan doing what he did in the exact manner that he did it; so that the people responsible were actually held accountable for their actions directly.
If Peter Theil didn't exist, and Hulk was richer, he could of used his own money and the verdict and judgement would of been exactly the same.
Gawker was being a bully, and didn't expect a bigger bully to come defend the wimpy kid.
Gawker's lack of professionalism and disregard for peoples privacy set a precedent that could one day be abused against legitimate journalists. They have no one but themselves to blame.
Gawker was being a bully, and didn't expect a bigger bully to come defend the wimpy kid.
Gawker's lack of professionalism and disregard for peoples privacy set a precedent that could one day be abused against legitimate journalists. They have no one but themselves to blame.
Frozenprince
Banned
We DO live in a world where a person's sexuality is important. This man can now be discriminated against because of something he want the public to know.
Gay people are discriminated against every single day. Are you fucking seriously trying to say outing someone against their will is okay?
Fucking Christ. Things like this aren't taken lightly because they could put somebody who could be in danger of serious physical harm.
Thiel simply funded the lawsuit. It was Gawkers own actions, both before and during the trial, that lost them the case.
People should worry less about a billionaire with a grudge "shutting down" Gawker, and more on the fact that it took the resources of a billionaire to actually go up against them in court.
People should worry less about a billionaire with a grudge "shutting down" Gawker, and more on the fact that it took the resources of a billionaire to actually go up against them in court.
Completely agree
SolidSnakex
Member
TarpitCarnivore
Member
Charles Harder, the lawyer who Thiel paid to represent Hogan, is also leading a lawsuit against TechDirt for libel over them calling BS on the guy who "invented email".
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...dirt-survival-fund-i-support-journalism.shtml
From a GQ article on Harder:
http://www.gq.com/story/charles-harder-gawker-lawyer
The guy wants to actually tear down libel laws to make it easier to sue people for saying something the disagree with.
I have no qualms with Hogan going after Gawker, they deserved it. My issue is that a billionaire stepped in to drive the price up on the lawsuit and bankrupt a company. AFAIK Hogan and Gawker had an agreement in place prior to Thiel stepping in. Harder's motives in court don't help things either.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...dirt-survival-fund-i-support-journalism.shtml
From a GQ article on Harder:
http://www.gq.com/story/charles-harder-gawker-lawyer
The guy wants to actually tear down libel laws to make it easier to sue people for saying something the disagree with.
I have no qualms with Hogan going after Gawker, they deserved it. My issue is that a billionaire stepped in to drive the price up on the lawsuit and bankrupt a company. AFAIK Hogan and Gawker had an agreement in place prior to Thiel stepping in. Harder's motives in court don't help things either.
SecretMoblin
Member
So rather than interview actual legal experts who might be able to deal with the fiction of this tort case in Florida having terrifying national free press implications, they decide that wrestling experts and hysterical "journalists" are good enough?
Well then.
Well then.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
This is one of those cases where both sides are shit so the best you can hope is that they destroy each other.
Camper Van Beethoven
Banned
By celebrating I mean nobody was saying this is an important constitutional issue and we should all encourage websites to publish them.
With hogan everyone is all lol hogan, with her nobody was ever arguing that there was a moral argument why they should be distributed.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yup. Let them fight
meltingparappa
Member
The slippery slope leads to dangerous places, I agree. But I find it very hard to dredge up even a modicum of sympathy for Gawker, after they thought that this was a worthwhile article to post
TarpitCarnivore
Member
I find it very hard to dredge up even a modicum of sympathy for Gawker, after they thought that this was a worthwhile article to post
Did I say I took issue with Gawker being sued? It's the ramifications of a billionaire funding a lawsuit, they technically don't have involvement in, with the intent of destroying a company/business as a vendetta and using a lawyer who wants to have libel laws redone. Never mind the fact that Thiel is a Trump supporter whom has also said he wants to get rid of libel laws.
This is also a slippery slope of frustration because had Thiel funded a lawsuit against a company that was harming peoples health out of good will we'd be looking at things differently
Hari Seldon
Member
The documentary boom due to Netflix has lowered the overall quality of documentaries I have noticed.
Earthbound64
Banned
"If I hide my head in the sand and pretend that everything is the way that it 'should be,' then everything's great!"
excelsiorlef
Member
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll