Support NeoGAF

[LordRaptor]

No, there's a pretty clear distinction between private individuals and public individuals. Read that Reuters article. I'm tired of talking with people that refuse to educate themselves.

That article doesn't believe that celebrity sex tapes should be a matter of public interest, it merely states that - depressingly - they are.
If your argument is based on "how things should be" - which it must be if you are saying that what actually happened is 'wrong' - then you are saying that anyone of any reknown has no expectation of privacy.

Is that how you genuinely believe things should be?

 

[shawnbuddy]

Please don't do this.
Public interest does not mean interesting to the public, and this should be obvious.
Press is about the public interest.
Tabloid shit is about what is interesting to the public.

And these two should not both enjoy freedom of press.

Jesus, please tell me you're kidding. If we're going to decide whole categories of media don't deserve free speech protections we might as well just establish state media and ban everything else.

 

[Westbahnhof]

Jesus, please tell me you're kidding. If we're going to decide whole categories of media don't deserve free speech protections we might as well just establish state media and ban everything else.

I'm not saying anything like that.
I'm saying that while there should be no limits when it comes to stories in the public interest, I think that when it comes to worthless gossip, individuals should be able to have some legal protection from huge corporations invading their private life for the entertainment of the masses.

Just like there are libel laws, something among those lines. Bit different obviously.
Then again, US libel laws are shit already, because of people with free speech boners.

 

[JP_]

That article doesn't believe that celebrity sex tapes should be a matter of public interest, it merely states that - depressingly - they are.
If your argument is based on "how things should be" - which it must be if you are saying that what actually happened is 'wrong' - then you are saying that anyone of any reknown has no expectation of privacy.

Is that how you genuinely believe things should be?

Actually, your logical leaps are wrong. I'm not really interested in whether sex tapes should be protected or not -- I'm more concerned with the way billionaires can abuse the law to shut down independent press they disagree with. There are other examples that don't happen to involve sex tapes -- one such example is brought up in the documentary this thread is about, which I doubt you watched. Another example is the case where a republican donor sued Mother Jones -- Mother Jones won the case but was still on the hook for huge legal fees and the republican donor started a fund to help other conservatives sue Mother Jones, hoping they too would drown in legal fees and stop writing negatively about them. Because again, this isn't about the truth or justice -- this is about silencing the free press.

If you want to change the law to carve out a sex tape exception for the free press, that's an entirely different conversation.

 

[Tylercrat]

This is one of the weirdest conspiracy theories I've ever heard. Do you think Hogan is some kind of mastermind? Did he somehow know in advance that Gawker wouldn't follow the courts order to take it down?
Also, I'm pretty sure the racist remarks are on one and the same sex tape.

It was on a different sex tape released by the National Enquirer. He's not a mastermind. It's just a smart move him and his lawyers put together. That's like calling Kim Kardasian a mastermind. Her sex tape was just a smart business move and was 'leaked' by her people as well.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

See, this is what I'm talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm referring to when it was thrown out in federal court before he dismissed those lawsuits and shopped around for a sympathetic judge in state court. And for the billionth time, Gawker did NOT ignore the ruling. THEY REMOVED THE TAPE. They didn't remove the text, and they were correct not to remove the text. You're insane if you think the judge was correct in ordering them to remove the text of their article.

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-fra...s-hulk-hogan-even-have-a-case-against-gawker/

You guys don't seem to realize that the case had other outcomes before this particular ruling and would have likely had a different outcome had Gawker been able to afford to continue the appeals. Don't confuse "ran out of money" with "found guilty"

Gawker never actually "ran out of money" they appealed and were rejected, and ultimately had to pay the punishment to Hogan.

"Gawker CEO Nick Denton said the company would appeal the verdict.[16] In early April 2016, Gawker Media filed two post-trial motions in the trial court.[28] In one motion, the company sought to throw out the jury verdict, arguing that "key evidence was wrongly withheld" and the jury instructions on the constitutional standards for newsworthiness were improper.[28] In another motion, Gawker argued that even if the verdict stands, the amount of damages should be greatly reduced, arguing that the emotional damage award exceeded amounts found to be excessive in severe personal injury cases and that the economic damages were improperly calculated.[28][29] In late May 2016, the trial judge denied both motions.[30]"

Thiel being outed has zero to do with that because the case wasn't about that article at all, so.... yeah, it's telling.

That wasn't the point, the point in that freedom of press argument was to show Gawker having a track record of questionable newsworthiness. Daulerio being a cunt on the stands exacerbated the issue even more.

“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.

“If they were a child,” Mr. Daulerio replied.

“Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.

“Four.”

 

[LordRaptor]

I'm more concerned with the way billionaires can abuse the law to shut down independent press they disagree with.

Right.
And I'm more concerned with billionaire media moguls being able to ruin the lives of normal people with impunity under poorly defined "freedom of speech" statutes.

Other bodies have well defined terms as to what constitutes "the Public Interest" - for example it is one of the criteria the Freedom Of Information Act works under.

This specific case shows that a jury do not agree that celebrity sex tapes fall under a Public Interest remit.

 

[TheCochese]

Gawker never actually "ran out of money" they appealed and were rejected, and ultimately had to pay the punishment to Hogan.

"Gawker CEO Nick Denton said the company would appeal the verdict.[16] In early April 2016, Gawker Media filed two post-trial motions in the trial court.[28] In one motion, the company sought to throw out the jury verdict, arguing that "key evidence was wrongly withheld" and the jury instructions on the constitutional standards for newsworthiness were improper.[28] In another motion, Gawker argued that even if the verdict stands, the amount of damages should be greatly reduced, arguing that the emotional damage award exceeded amounts found to be excessive in severe personal injury cases and that the economic damages were improperly calculated.[28][29] In late May 2016, the trial judge denied both motions.[30]"



That wasn't the point, the point in that freedom of press argument was to show Gawker having a track record of questionable newsworthiness. Daulerio being a cunt on the stands exacerbated the issue even more.

Dauliero was also the guy who told the woman whose rape(?) vid they published should let it go because she couldn't be identified.

 

[JP_]

Right.
And I'm more concerned with billionaire media moguls being able to ruin the lives of normal people with impunity under poorly defined "freedom of speech" statutes.

Other bodies have well defined terms as to what constitutes "the Public Interest" - for example it is one of the criteria the Freedom Of Information Act works under.

This specific case shows that a jury do not agree that celebrity sex tapes fall under a Public Interest remit.

That's not what the documentary that is the subject of this thread is about. If you watched it, you might be less confused about my posts.

 

[JP_]

Gawker never actually "ran out of money" they appealed and were rejected, and ultimately had to pay the punishment to Hogan.

"Gawker CEO Nick Denton said the company would appeal the verdict.[16] In early April 2016, Gawker Media filed two post-trial motions in the trial court.[28] In one motion, the company sought to throw out the jury verdict, arguing that "key evidence was wrongly withheld" and the jury instructions on the constitutional standards for newsworthiness were improper.[28] In another motion, Gawker argued that even if the verdict stands, the amount of damages should be greatly reduced, arguing that the emotional damage award exceeded amounts found to be excessive in severe personal injury cases and that the economic damages were improperly calculated.[28][29] In late May 2016, the trial judge denied both motions.[30]

Lol, just continue reading that Wikipedia article and you'll find that you're wrong. I'm on mobile, but look at citations 35 and 11

 

[Kinyou]

It was on a different sex tape released by the National Enquirer. He's not a mastermind. It's just a smart move him and his lawyers put together. That's like calling Kim Kardasian a mastermind. Her sex tape was just a smart business move and was 'leaked' by her people as well.

Kardashian's sex tape was a PR stunt. That's a bit of a different argument.
You claimed that he deliberately leaked it to Gawker to take them down later:

He probably leaked it himself so that he could sue Gawker for 100 million dollars.

something which wasn't guaranteed at all. Had he lost the lawsuit he would have wasted a shitton of money.

I'm also not sure about the logic that another sex tape was supposed to serve as cover for the racist one


btw. that link leads to nowhere.

Also, the other source Radaronline which also published the story states that he talking to Heather Clem in that specific video, that's the same woman he's with in the gawker sex tape. Considering that this leaked because the tape was filed to court during the trial, I assume that it's simply the full tape of Hogan's sexual encounter.

 

[LordRaptor]

That's not what the documentary that is the subject of this thread is about. If you watched it, you might be less confused about my posts.

Thats because this documentary has a point of view it wants to put forward, and it honestly does not do so very well.

 

[JP_]

Thats because this documentary has a point of view it wants to put forward, and it honestly does not do so very well.

Based on your posts in this thread, I find it hard to believe you've actually watched it. I mean, your first post is basically just you reiterating the same position you had a year ago:

I thought I remembered commenting on this here when it happened, and I stand by what I said then.

Anyway, you're literally removing context from my posts now -- here:

Actually, your logical leaps are wrong. I'm not really interested in whether sex tapes should be protected or not -- I'm more concerned with the way billionaires can abuse the law to shut down independent press they disagree with. There are other examples that don't happen to involve sex tapes -- one such example is brought up in the documentary this thread is about, which I doubt you watched. Another example is the case where a republican donor sued Mother Jones -- Mother Jones won the case but was still on the hook for huge legal fees and the republican donor started a fund to help other conservatives sue Mother Jones, hoping they too would drown in legal fees and stop writing negatively about them. Because again, this isn't about the truth or justice -- this is about silencing the free press.

If you want to change the law to carve out a sex tape exception for the free press, that's an entirely different conversation.

 

[shawnbuddy]

I'm not saying anything like that.
I'm saying that while there should be no limits when it comes to stories in the public interest, I think that when it comes to worthless gossip, individuals should be able to have some legal protection from huge corporations invading their private life for the entertainment of the masses.

Just like there are libel laws, something among those lines. Bit different obviously.
Then again, US libel laws are shit already, because of people with free speech boners.

Who decides what's in the public interest? The government? Peter Thiel?

So you agree with Thiel and Trump's plan to strengthen libel laws? Have you given any thought to their likely motives?

 

[shawnbuddy]

Right.
And I'm more concerned with billionaire media moguls being able to ruin the lives of normal people with impunity under poorly defined "freedom of speech" statutes.

Other bodies have well defined terms as to what constitutes "the Public Interest" - for example it is one of the criteria the Freedom Of Information Act works under.

This specific case shows that a jury do not agree that celebrity sex tapes fall under a Public Interest remit.

Nick Denton was never a billionaire. He was in fact personally bankrupted by the lawsuit. It came out in the lawsuit that Denton and the whole Gawker operation combined were worth about $200 million. I know it helps your case if you can seem to put he and Thiel on a level playing field, but let's be intellectually honest here.

 

[Westbahnhof]

Who decides what's in the public interest? The government? Peter Thiel?

So you agree with Thiel and Trump's plan to strengthen libel laws? Have you given any thought to their likely motives?

Do you think that in the cases regarding Thiel/Hogan, one could argue that it was in the public interest?

And I don't know, I have no idea about their libel law ideas or plans. But I support proper libel laws, so maybe? I don't like either guy, so I'll obviously view anything they suggest rather critically.

 

[Epiphyte]

So if the Hogan tape was protected journalism by being of "public interest," do we then argue that the JLaw photos were also in the public interest?

She is a public figure and clearly the public was interested in viewing them. What is the legal distinction in these two events? Is there a certain threshold of fame where everything is fair game?

 

[JP_]

Do you think that in the cases regarding Thiel/Hogan, one could argue that it was in the public interest?

Yes, it was successfully argued in federal court and appeals -- and the precedent from other cases support Gawker. Hogan/Thiel only got the result they wanted after dismissing earlier federal cases so they could shop for a local state judge that was more sympathetic.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

Lol, just continue reading that Wikipedia article and you'll find that you're wrong. I'm on mobile, but look at citations 35 and 11

How is that wrong? One of the citations noted:

Though it's filing for bankruptcy, Gawker has no plans to cease its operations. The company will continue to operate as normal while the bankruptcy process proceeds and it appeals the Hogan judgment.

The proceeds from the sale of the assets will be put in escrow while Gawker appeals the Hogan case. If the $140.1 million judgment is upheld on appeal, then some of the money held in escrow will go to Hogan. If the judgment is overturned on appeal, then most of the money held in escrow will be returned to Denton and the company's other shareholders.

So they still planned to appeal (just like I said before ultimately being rejected), and only when they ran out of options that they realized they had no choice but to pay up.

 

[Westbahnhof]

Yes, it was successfully argued in federal court and appeals -- and the precedent from other cases support Gawker. Hogan/Thiel only got the result they wanted after dismissing earlier federal cases so they could shop for a local state judge that was more sympathetic.

Any places where I can read up the arguments they brought?
Because this sounds like inane gossip material, and I honesty can't imagine a justification for publishing besides "people love their social voyeurism".

 

[JP_]

Any places where I can read up the arguments they brought?
Because this sounds like inane gossip material, and I honesty can't imagine a justification for publishing besides "people love their social voyeurism".

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-fra...s-hulk-hogan-even-have-a-case-against-gawker/

How is that wrong? One of the citations noted:



So they still planned to appeal (just like I said before ultimately being rejected), and only when they ran out of options that they realized they had no choice but to pay up.

You stopped at the first paragraph and ignored everything that happened after what you're quoting. Stop wasting people's time with crap that you fail to fully research.

look at citations 35 and 11

 

[Westbahnhof]

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-fra...s-hulk-hogan-even-have-a-case-against-gawker/

So it does boil down to people loving their social voyeurism. Huh.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Do you think that in the cases regarding Thiel/Hogan, one could argue that it was in the public interest?

And I don't know, I have no idea about their libel law ideas or plans. But I support proper libel laws, so maybe? I don't like either guy, so I'll obviously view anything they suggest rather critically.

Sure, on both counts.

Thiel is an important Silicon Valley player, one of the most important, his homosexuality was not a secret by his own admission, and talking about it was in the context of criticizing homophobia in the tech industry.

Terry Bollea has been a celebrity for more than thirty years. He has actively publicized the details of his sex life during that time, everything from his affairs to the size of his dick. He has not sought to be a private person in these matters, instead he made his sex life a matter of public interest himself as one judge in the case found before a Thiel helped Bollea shop for a verdict. Perhaps actually showing the video was too far and Gawker rightly took it down, but there was nothing wrong with writing about it. The jury, like a lot of GAFers, decided this case on emotion, not the law.

 

[Cat Party]

Gawker never actually "ran out of money" they appealed and were rejected, and ultimately had to pay the punishment to Hogan.

Wrong. Post trial motions are not appeals. The appeal had to be dropped. Had Gawker not been forced into bankruptcy, they very well may have prevailed on appeal and survived.

 

[Tylercrat]

Edit: Nevermind.

 

[Chumley]

Thats because this documentary has a point of view it wants to put forward, and it honestly does not do so very well.

You haven't even watched it. Stop lying.

 

[LordRaptor]

Nick Denton was never a billionaire. He was in fact personally bankrupted by the lawsuit. It came out in the lawsuit that Denton and the whole Gawker operation combined were worth about $200 million. I know it helps your case if you can seem to put he and Thiel on a level playing field, but let's be intellectually honest here.

You're missing the point; restrictions on press freedoms don't only benefit billionaires waging war by proxy. That's supposed to be the point of the courts.

You haven't even watched it. Stop lying.

No, I have watched it; it fails to portray these events as a bad thing outside of nebulous "freedom of the press is better than not" - which I generally agree with - and then clumsily segues into Trumps 'fake news' agenda.
Here's the thing; its not the reputable press doing due diligence that leads to people thinking of journalists as papparazzi scumbags. Its the people abusing press freedoms that bring the entire institution under scrutiny.

 

[bozeman]

Wonder how much crossover there is between people defending Gawker's freedom to post Hogan's sex tape yet decried the invasion of privacy when The Fappening happened?

 

[keenerz]

Freedom of the press is important but I think using Gawker as the example is poor. Finding that people calling blogs that can literally post anything "press" is kind of something that needs to be sorted out. The whole problem is mixing press and blogs together you end up with fake news here and real press there, kind of a big mess.