What if the sex might have been non-consensual (see: Dominique Strauss-Kahn)? What if the sex is between a public official and his employee (see: Bill Clinton)? What if the sex is illegal (see: Eliot Spitzer)?
The fact is that sex can be of interest to the public, which means video of that sex can also be of interest to the public.
How exactly is it "very different from adult people consensually enjoying themselves"?
Whataboutism. Hogan had the right to sue, he won, end of story. This isn't the government and a prosecution silencing Gawker, this is an individual against a corporation and he won.period.
There is another type of illegal sex, the kind involving minors. And I don't care how news worthy anyone would deem it to be, even the most hardcore Free Speech absolutist usually goes quite confronted with that conundrum. The public's interest doesn't create protected speech.
(An irony that the first site that came up was Gawker)
All I see is a report that it exists. Neither of the two links in the tweet were to stories showing the photos.
There is a difference between protecting a group from being silenced by the Government and holding a private company liable when they release a sex tape under the pretense of freedom of speech/freedom of the press.
>I believe this will have a chilling effect on the media in the US.
As well it should...its not exactly a slippery slope: sex tapes don't become newsworthy just because the subject is a celebrity.