On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.
I know. That's my point. Not only that, the appeals court ruled in favor of gawkers.
> but people also have the right to judge you for that.
Sure...
>You're also ignoring the part where Gawker lost at trial.
No I'm not. I actually addressed it.
> They lost because the Gawker editor admitted under cross-examination he did not believe a depiction of Hulk Hogan's genitals had any "news value."
No. That's not why they lost. Trials are FICKLE.
> On a more personal note, I really don't see any difference between this case and "revenge porn" cases.
What does this have to do with "revenge porn"?
Nothing. What's your point? As I said, JURIES aren't infallible.
The prosecutors lost the case against OJ simpson. What's your point?
> That seems to be rather neglected in this explanation...
No. The point is that someone who had NOTHING to do with the hogan case decided to inject themselves and use their money to bankrupt a company.
Okay?
Gawker had a fair trial in a US court of law and it lost. If that didn't happen it couldn't go out of business.
Not only that. If you look at the replies, there is a "core group" who are repeating the SAME THING over and over again. The same debunked lies.
I'm not a fan of gawker. I'm not that sad that they aren't around. But what I am shocked by is that it was taken out by a vindictive billionaire with an agenda. It's surprising how a select group of accounts are attacking me for pointing that out.
There were TONS of websites that published all or parts of the sex tape before gawker. And yet, thiel went after gawker.
Apparently, a site being attacked and bankrupted by a vindictive billionaire is a praise worthy thing in a free society to a select group of people on HN.
It's a very strange thing to behold.
No. Gawker died because of a billionaire who wanted to take it down and the mass PR firm he hired to get people on his side on social media.
Also, the top comments on this thread are repeating the same lies over and over again.
> publishing an illegaly-obtained sex tape in its entirety
Was it illegal? Then why isn't the gawker people in prison?
> and refusing to take it down after a judge orders to do so?
They have a right to refuse an unconstitutional order and their refusal was vindicated by the courts.
"The injunction was quickly stayed on appeal, and was denied in 2014 by the appeals court, which ruled that under the circumstances it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
The courts ruled that the judge's injunction violated FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
The top comments in this thread repeat the same debunked lies over and over again. But I guess that's the power of billionaires and their PR firms. A lie repeated over and over again becomes the truth?