Down Goes Gawker!

[IrishinSyria]

I don't believe in true justice, because the universe is a terrible place, so I assume that Gawker will survive on appeal.

Either way, though, this is a win for individual privacy in the internet age. "Public Figure" rules in print jounalism are stone-age shit compared to the things that need to be thought about in our current world. Just because Hulkamania is a public figure doesn't mean he isn't entitled to some privacy in the bedroom, especially without his consent. I felt like the case should have been an easy one from the start.

Did you feel the same way about Clinton and his blow jobs or Weiner and his, well, wiener?

 

[IrishLion]

Did you feel the same way about Clinton and his blow jobs or Weiner and his, well, wiener?

Being TOLD about someone getting blowies in the Oval Office or being TOLD that some politician is sending dick pics isn't the same as recording someone having sex, without their knowledge and consent, and then plastering the video and images all over the internet.

Reporting on Bill Clinton is delivering information. Reporting on Weiner and his dingy is delivering information. That's the point of "journalism" and "reporting."

Posting a video of someone having sex against their will and without their knowledge is borderline sexual assault. It is not nearly the same as delivering newsworthy information to the public.

 

[IrishLax]

Being TOLD about someone getting blowies in the Oval Office or being TOLD that some politician is sending dick pics isn't the same as recording someone having sex, without their knowledge and consent, and then plastering the video and images all over the internet.

Reporting on Bill Clinton is delivering information. Reporting on Weiner and his dingy is delivering information. That's the point of "journalism" and "reporting."

Posting a video of someone having sex against their will and without their knowledge is borderline sexual assault. It is not nearly the same as delivering newsworthy information to the public.

Nailed it.

Notice how Gawker and Gawker affiliated sites were like "how dare people look at the female celebrity nudes!?!?" and got all morally sanctimonious... and then they posted Hulk Hogan's sex ape simply for clicks/profit. It's hypocrisy at its highest level.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Being TOLD about someone getting blowies in the Oval Office or being TOLD that some politician is sending dick pics isn't the same as recording someone having sex, without their knowledge and consent, and then plastering the video and images all over the internet.

Reporting on Bill Clinton is delivering information. Reporting on Weiner and his dingy is delivering information. That's the point of "journalism" and "reporting."

Posting a video of someone having sex against their will and without their knowledge is borderline sexual assault. It is not nearly the same as delivering newsworthy information to the public.

Fair enough on Clinton. I think Weiner's is a tougher case because a: he's acting as a private citizen right now and b: plenty of outlets have published his texts/snaps, presumably without his consent. It's one thing to read about him sending a picture of his bulge, it's another thing to see the picture with his son on the bed right next to him.

Does it matter whether or not Hulk knew the video was being filmed (and how the hell was the video filmed in the first place?)

Actually, getting back to Clinton, what if there was White House security footage of him getting a hummer and a secret service agent sent it to fox news. Clearly, there'd probably be administrative or criminal action you could take against the agent, but would you really say that fox news should be subject to liability if they published the video? I think that would be newsworthy AF.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Nailed it.

Notice how Gawker and Gawker affiliated sites were like "how dare people look at the female celebrity nudes!?!?" and got all morally sanctimonious... and then they posted Hulk Hogan's sex ape simply for clicks/profit. It's hypocrisy at its highest level.

But were they ever making a legal argument about the leaked nudes? It's one thing to say that people shouldn't view pictures, it's another thing to say that it should be illegal for them to do so. Hypocrisy is annoying, but it shouldn't give rise to liability.

Again, it's obvious to me that whoever hacked apple and stole the pictures should be subject to criminal and civil liability. It's a lot less obvious to me that unaffiliated news sites who publish the pictures should be held liable. It seems to raise a lot of issues.

 

[IrishLion]

Fair enough on Clinton. I think Weiner's is a tougher case because a: he's acting as a private citizen right now and b: plenty of outlets have published his texts/snaps, presumably without his consent. It's one thing to read about him sending a picture of his bulge, it's another thing to see the picture with his son on the bed right next to him.

Does it matter whether or not Hulk knew the video was being filmed (and how the hell was the video filmed in the first place?)

Actually, getting back to Clinton, what if there was White House security footage of him getting a hummer and a secret service agent sent it to fox news. Clearly, there'd probably be administrative or criminal action you could take against the agent, but would you really say that fox news should be subject to liability if they published the video? I think that would be newsworthy AF.

To the bolded, it *shouldn't* matter. Either way, a citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a cop-out, but it obviously depends on the situation, too. Hulk Hogan is a public figure, but his sex-life isn't tied to his status as a public figure. Bill Clinton getting a blowie in the Oval Office, from a White House intern, is absolutely tied to his status as a public figure.

And the differences in those situations are exactly what I meant in my original post that you quoted. The legal definitions of "privacy" and how they relate to "media" and "public figure" are completely in flux right now because of the digital world we live in. Every situation is different when digital content is present, depending on who's involved, what the content is/was used for, and whether or not any laws were being broken.

Journalism is simply trying to keep up with USING technology as it advances... the field actually needs to be far more concerned with ethics, laws and regulations in regards to that very usage. As a relatively recent graduate of a journalism program, I can say that they are trying very hard to keep up... but one class and one adviser for the student paper aren't enough to teach potential journalists about ethics at the deep level that society requires.

The Hogan case (and his victory) was an important step in that direction. Not just because f*ck Gawker, but because reporting on something doesn't mean you also have to destroy someone's privacy totally and completely. You can report the fact that Hulk Hogan is a scumbag that banged his friend's wife... but posting his likeness, from a private residence and without his consent, is not necessary to report the newsworthy information. It's an unnecessary breach of privacy, and the ultimate judgement handed down is an important bench-mark that is being created for future cases, which is immensely important for both citizens and the journalists that will be doing the reporting.

 

[IrishinSyria]

To the bolded, it *shouldn't* matter. Either way, a citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a cop-out, but it obviously depends on the situation, too. Hulk Hogan is a public figure, but his sex-life isn't tied to his status as a public figure. Bill Clinton getting a blowie in the Oval Office, from a White House intern, is absolutely tied to his status as a public figure.

And the differences in those situations are exactly what I meant in my original post that you quoted. The legal definitions of "privacy" and how they relate to "media" and "public figure" are completely in flux right now because of the digital world we live in. Every situation is different when digital content is present, depending on who's involved, what the content is/was used for, and whether or not any laws were being broken.

Journalism is simply trying to keep up with USING technology as it advances... the field actually needs to be far more concerned with ethics, laws and regulations in regards to that very usage. As a relatively recent graduate of a journalism program, I can say that they are trying very hard to keep up... but one class and one adviser for the student paper aren't enough to teach potential journalists about ethics at the deep level that society requires.

The Hogan case (and his victory) was an important step in that direction. Not just because f*ck Gawker, but because reporting on something doesn't mean you also have to destroy someone's privacy totally and completely. You can report the fact that Hulk Hogan is a scumbag that banged his friend's wife... but posting his likeness, from a private residence and without his consent, is not necessary to report the newsworthy information. It's an unnecessary breach of privacy, and the ultimate judgement handed down is an important bench-mark that is being created for future cases, which is immensely important for both citizens and the journalists that will be doing the reporting.

As a matter of ethics in journalism, I think you're absolutely right. But I have serious reservations with courts making the determination of what is and isn't newsworthy. And I'm fairly confident that this thing will ultimately make it to the Supreme Court and that they will reverse the judgment. It's definitely an interesting case and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

Which gets me back to the Weiner example- he shared his bulge pictures with one person. Clearly, he didn't mean to consent for her to share those with the media. But she did.

 

[IrishLax]

As a matter of ethics in journalism, I think you're absolutely right. But I have serious reservations with courts making the determination of what is and isn't newsworthy. And I'm fairly confident that this thing will ultimately make it to the Supreme Court and that they will reverse the judgment. It's definitely an interesting case and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

Which gets me back to the Weiner example- he shared his bulge pictures with one person. Clearly, he didn't mean to consent for her to share those with the media. But she did.

Which is an interesting thought experiment... was it her property then and her right to share? How did Gawker get Hogan's sex tape in the first place? Anyone know? And does it matter?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Which is an interesting thought experiment... was it her property then and her right to share? How did Gawker get Hogan's sex tape in the first place? Anyone know? And does it matter?

They claimed it was mailed to them in an unmarked envelope. Hulk claims he didn't know it was being filmed. The suspicion is that the girl's husband knew what was going on and set up a camera- but he never testified during the trial. No idea if she was in on it. Not crazy to think that all three were.

What seems pretty clear is that there's absolutely no reason to believe Gawker had anything to do with the making of the video, which is personally where I think the real illegal action (at least might have) happened.

 

[wizards8507]

What seems pretty clear is that there's absolutely no reason to believe Gawker had anything to do with the making of the video, which is personally where I think the real illegal action (at least might have) happened.

This is a civil case and thus falls under tort law. Whether it was illegal or not is irrelevant.

 

[IrishinSyria]

This is a civil case and thus falls under tort law. Whether it was illegal or not is irrelevant.

Ok, read illegal as "activity that leaves one subject to liability" if it makes you happy. Tort law is still law.