For example, it's illegal to film what's happening inside a slaughterhouse[1]. Some people are getting into trouble for filming cops[2].
I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be that, among other things, every publisher will know not to mess with the status quo.
One can easily imagine a next generation of laws that will make it illegal to publish leaked documents, like those that Snowden or Wikileaks released.
[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/charged-crime-filming-slaug... [2] http://www.copblock.org/1281/filmingpolice/
Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spycams in public bathrooms?
That strikes me as overreach. There's clearly a privacy question here, but the video is real, the words are real, and the events actually happened.
I've never seen the video. I don't care. Hogan's sex life is not interesting to me. People already masterbate to him.
I'm struggling to understand how a large amount of damage was dealt.
Isn't the alternative that every journalistic publication is above the law? If it were/is a free speech issue, then presumably it will be overturned on appeal?
Bollea's lawyers, as funded by Thiel, then decided to specifically drop the claim that would allow the damages payout to have been made from insurance. That's fairly vindictive.
Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtless on a gay cruise, I think it's fairly safe the rest of the world didn't need Valleywag to tell them of your homosexuality.
I think a lot of what Gawker has done is repugnant.
But this is analogous to me making a bad mistake (even breaking the law) and causing a lot of damage in a car accident. In the civil trials that follow, I'm sued for damages, distress, medical bills, and the like. All well and good, as I should be.
And I have insurance. As I should have.
Except you don't like me, because I previously attacked you verbally.
So you say "Actually, your Honor, we're dropping all claims that are proximate to the accident itself, and only suing for everything that happened after the fact." which ever-so-conveniently takes my insurance off the hook for its ability to pay.
And you only do this -after- being assured you'll win, so no-one can question your real motivation (apparently, there was all this damage and distress you suffered, and you want recompense. Except now you don't, because you're removing the only realistic mechanism for you to obtain any recompense).
I don't think "secret motivations" and secret financiers should be a part of an open court system (and indeed, secretly financing lawsuits used to be and in most places is still illegal because it raises more ethical and moral questions than it answers).
Does all that evidence matter? Shouldn't it be up to Theil when and where he outs himself instead of blog like Valleywag doing it for him?
When I go to the supermarket I see 500 headlines about famous people dating and breaking up and cheating on their partners, etc.
Sure it's a little lowbrow but do we really feel that rumors about Brad Pitt and Carrie Underwood's dating life are ok to publish but his aren't? Are Peter Thiel's relationships specifically somehow exempt from this aspect of the culture?
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not about evaluating everything said and determining if something is "in the public interest" in the United States. I think that focus on the "public interest" aligns more with European or Chinese cultural values.
If we are talking about personal values, I am glad we don't have censors in the US. Even if you and I can agree celebrity gossip probably has no value, what get defined as "not in the public interest" is too easy to be politically determined.
Agree, but it isn't illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberace_v_Daily_Mirror
http://www.theargus.co.uk/magazine/nostalgia/pastpresent/445...
1) It feels obviously wrong to me to have someone publicly outed like that. [like you say, the evidence doesn't matter]
2) It feels sketchy for a wronged person to retaliate by having a nontrivial player in written media shut down.
I find a private, rich entity shutting down a media company much scarier than a media company publishing facts.
But if you haven't, you really ought to read Benedict Evans piece on this:
> Again, though, Thiel has already won. He is fabulously wealthy and extremely influential, and say what you will about Gawker, the liberal democracy that made it possible for the companies Thiel has built and invested in to emerge depends on a free press; driving a publication to bankruptcy via lawyer fees may be legal by the letter of the law, and even deserved on a personal level, but it is in absolute violation of the spirit of the law and, I might add, a rather hypocritical — or is it ironic? — use of government by the avowed libertarian Thiel. What are more concerning, though — and implicit in this concern is a critique of libertarianism — are the second and third-order effects of Thiel’s approach.
> The most obvious second-order effect is that, as Felix Salmon writes, Thiel is providing a blueprint for the suppression of the press by the wealthy. But what concerns me — and what ought to concern Thiel, and all of the Silicon Valley elites celebrating his actions — are the third order effects. Specifically, Thiel’s actions are bringing into stark relief the fundamental weakness of old analog businesses like journalism relative to the incredible power and strength of the technology sector, and if companies follow Thiel’s example, the freedom that makes the emergence of said companies possible could quickly come under threat — and deservedly so.
I just don't fully agree. I see a powerful person doing what nobody else was willing to do - hold a powerful and abusive media organization to account for their actions. It's far from ideal. However, no ideal answer was on offer. In an ideal world, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.
To me, it is a stepwise improvement over the previous state of affairs. This reminds powerful people and organizations of something important - they are not the only ones with power.
Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises.
"Like" it doesn't come into it. I don't have a right to stop people doing what I don't "like".
I am all for free speech, but if we are going to have libel and defamation laws (which I have mixed feelings about), everyone should be allowed to avail themselves of the opportunity to obtain compensation from those who have 'wronged' them.
So this:
"Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises."
...is not saying that decisions have consequences. It is saying that people who make decisions you don't agree with have no right to privacy. You are arguing that a perceived moment of hypocrisy should somehow revoke a person's ability to make decisions.
There is zero morality in showbiz, it's all dares, counter-dares, lawyers and technicalities.
You fight fire with fire. I don't think it's unfair Gawker lost at their own game. Another one will fill the void anyway.
This is: you hit me with a car, i find out what your insurance covers, and then make sure that your insurance wont cover it.
So... Reporting on that seems like actual information that should be public? Compare to the pamela anderson tape, which was with her husband, was literally /stolen from their home/, and was sold for profit. Judge ruled that there wasnt anythig they could do.
Meanwhile, Thiel who was using hogan as a proxy has literally just demonstrated that you cant afford to post opinion pieces about tech billionaires and their occassionally delusional comments about how people should behave.
It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people).
This fetish is called wifesharing. It's not cheating, and it's not immoral. You may not personally like the idea, but calling someone's fetish immoral when all parties consent to the act is strange. Saying that it's in the public interest to know is offensive.
There are many sources that say this was a consensual act. I won't post these sordid articles here, but they are very easy to find.
This is equivalent to someone being gay, and someone else saying that it's in the public interest for their immoral acts to be made public.
FWIW, unless there's some real public interest beyond the prurient, I don't see why people should be able to publish anyone's private sex tapes without their consent. I would tend to say that the right to privacy should win in such cases.
Posting the video got them in trouble (for obvious reasons), and refusing to take it down played a big role in the final sentence (aka death).
So it's OK as long as they cross the "very" threshhold?
Also, just because it interests you and you're a member of the public does not make it a public interest
The only way this case is dangerous is if people start issuing bonds which are just a collection of partial settlements of still undecided lawsuits, funded by the purchase of said bond. This doesn't exist (as no banks are backing/issuing these bonds).
Its just media FUD due to them being held accountable for violating personal privacy laws.
If you are concerned the case cost to much here's a new issue for you to care about TORT REFORM.
It was my impression that Nick Denton told the court to fuck itself by ignoring the court order, and then doubled down in his deposition.
What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? That was a private video, probably made illegally.
Journalism is about making private things public when it suits the public. An individual (who is directly impacted by the revelations) should not be able to use the courts to crush that journalism.
Gawker has been repugnant and they shouldn't have done what they did to Hogan, but there could still be a bad precedent here.
For the record, he didn't say anything horrible about poor people. What he said was:
> There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. … My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
He simply stated the facts: there's nothing he can do to win over a certain fraction of the electorate without compromising his principles; thus there's no point focusing on it; thus he needs to spend his time as a candidate focusing on those who he can win over without compromising his principles.
When you're taped stating that you are not even going to try to help 47% of the population because of a stereotype I think that people have a valid point to be upset about.
How do you know that he was incorrect?
Basically, his story was the upper leadership were caught on tape making comments about how the rank and file of Libertarians were essentially manipulated fools to prevent them from disrupting the power of the Republican Party. That is the gist of his story, as best I can remember. I have some sympathy for libertarian principles, and conservative ones, and liberal ones, so I am not an ideologue. This incident is entirely possible, given what I understand of human nature and how society/politics actually operates.
I agree with Gawker being repugnant etc; the story seems essentially salacious and its fundamental purpose was to drive website traffic. Are sex scandals that important, in the big picture? Only when they involve national security or other such public interest issues - e.g. General David Petraeus and his carelessness. Where is the line where exposing hypocrisy is in the public interest versus the essential rights of a person?
Video of people having sex may be something the public is interested in, but it is not in the public interest. It's none of the public's business and the public should find more interesting things to be interested in.
1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/29/hulk-hogan-i...
And Romney had the right to sue.He didn't what you're point ?
And what about all the other people that were the victims of such an invasion of privacy, but didn't get a reward big enough to retire on thirty times over?
The core problem is that the "justice" system is so capricious that only a few victims get made whole, and when they do, it's bizarrely over the top.
Maybe Florida anti-SLAPP laws aren't good enough, I don't know. But it's a tough balance. Bollea's case was determine by a judge to have enough merit to take to court.
Bollea will probably lose on appeal. But he definitely has the right to his day in court.
I don't buy it. Courts routinely throw out frivolous suits, sometimes they even punish the people who start them.
Gawker lost because Gawker was wrong.
Yes Thiel has shakey ethics. Gawker violated the law AND ethics. Neither side was good in this case.
If you think court cases are too expensive PERIOD... Then start caring about Tort Reform.
Should the company be penalized? Most definitely. Was it worth shutting an otherwise okay running business? Questionably.
He has funded multiple suits against Gawker.
He wasn't giving a friend some money, he was explicitly searching out cases to take down a media company. That's a precedent.
Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what the hand-wringing about is about.