Amazingly, much of the free press in the US have made themselves a liability to society by obfuscating what is truth and what is fiction without giving a second thought as to how detrimental it is to the country. Think Alex Jones and Fox News types. Think weasel words like "people think," "It's been said that," etc. Those are cues that the topic is as best unsubstantiated, at worst an outright falsehood to inspire fear in people for ad revenue. There are similar types on the opposite of the political spectrum. These companies exist to profit off of fear, obfuscation and anger.
The best way to protect yourself? Don't publish shitty tabloid articles. Don't publish shit sex tapes of fucking HH, as if anyone wants to see that. If you are in the business of pushing sleaze and ruining people's lives for profit, piss off.
Journalism's purpose in our society is to tell the population what the powerful people / government don't want them to know. The reason this is useful is because a democratically elected population needs to know what's going on in order to make correct choices come election time. They need to know if their government is corrupt. People don't need to know that Theil is gay or what HH looks like having sex. That's not journalism, that's not useful, that's gossip.
As for this R Kelly business? Everyone knows he's a weirdo. Take it to the authorities if you want to make a difference. If the authorities ignore it and he's actually doing something illegal? Then publish it to force their hand.
And the climate nowadays is better than it ever has been for outlets like Infowars. Alex Jones is supported by the president of the United States. Yet it's problematic for people who write well-substantiated, honest pieces on powerful entertainment celebrities like R. Kelly.
The Gawker case did absolutely nothing to hold Infowars to account. It instead had the effect of demonstrating that it can be dangerous to write negative things about entertainment celebrities with deep pockets. Needless to say, with the president of the United States being who he is, it's hard to argue that that particular outcome is a societal benefit.
From what I understand, Gawker's two big follies lead to their downfall was:
1. Outing Peter Thiel as gay. Sleazy IMO.
2. Publishing a HH sex tape that was stolen and recorded without HH's permission. (according to HH).
They didn't get in trouble for #1, though it's pretty damn sleazy. They did get in trouble for #2, which they absolutely should have. I would think if some publication published the stolen JLaw pics, they would get sued out of existence too.
They didn't get in trouble for writing negative things about entertainment celebrities. They got in trouble for publishing stolen porn. Also, they would have gotten away with it because HH was running out of money for the lawsuit. That's where Thiel came in. What we almost got was a news publication being able to publish stolen porn because they have deep pockets.
FWIW, the Fairness Doctrine repeal in the 80s is what lead to all these airbags spewing anger for ad revenue. That's an actual free speech issue.
But if we project your idea further along - that the Fifth Estate should not have its rights impeded, at all, ever, by anyone - then, we get censorship of the people, who - unless they are anointed members of the Fifth Estate, will not have the same assumed powers, ever.
So .. should only a certain 'class' of 'authority' in society have the ability to say what it wants?
The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion.
In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being, whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded.
What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech?
No. Everyone should.
> The answer is that there are no absolutes in this discussion.
There are principles though.
> In the example we are following, Gawker uses its rights of free speech to hurt another human being
That's why we have free speech. Using your logic, every atheist should be jailed because they hurt another human being.
> whose own rights (to privacy) were being impeded.
No they weren't. That's the point.
Anyways, the gawker case has nothing to do with privacy. It has everything to do with a billionaire deciding to take out gawker.
I've never visited gawker. Don't really care about celebrity news. But I do believe in free speech.
And you could say gawker is a terrible sight and still defend their free speech rights.
> What do you think should have happened, which should have more precedence over the other - the right of privacy, or the right of free speech?
Free speech of course - especially when it concerns a PUBLIC figure.
Here's the thing. NOTHING ILLEGAL happened despite the hordes here saying so. Hulk Hogan spoke about the sex tape LONG before gawker released it. FOOTAGE of it already had been released by TMZ and other sites. And the sex tape was acquired LEGALLY.
https://thinkprogress.org/nobody-speak-documentary-eab86b547...
Funny how TMZ and other sites are still around?
It wasn't the judge. It was the JURY.
And judges aren't "infallible".
As a matter of fact, appeals court ruled that the judge infringed on the free speech rights of gawker.
"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. Gawker tried to get Judge Campbell to dismiss the case based on that ruling, but the case went to trial."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker
As I said, I'm not a fan of gawker. But I'm for free speech. Even ugly, offensive, disgusting speech is FREE SPEECH. That's the purpose of free speech. To protect OFFENSIVE speech.
You spam this sub claiming you are for free speech and yet all you have done so far is to peddle anti-free speech rhetoric.
Nonsense. Nowhere have I said that Gawker shouldn't have had the right of free speech. Just that they should accept responsibility for the consequences of that speech. That they chose not to, just means they're unable to defend their own rights when faced with justice for the harm they actually did cause while exercising that right.
I'm completely okay, for example, with you insulting me with your vitriol - as long as you're prepared to deal with the down votes in a responsible, adult-like manner. That isn't what happened with Gawker - they flaunted the law and demonstrated time and again that they thought they were above the law, "just because".
Alas, all these rights are for naught if we don't have a social system in place to protect them.
I believe it is just like when the police arrests a thief robbing a store, it does not affect the right to come and go of the other customers. Not even the ones who are there complaining or protesting against the store.
Really? Going out of business isn't having their speech curtailed?
> Free speech doesn't mean the right to say whatever you want without repercussions or consequences.
Sure...
> People are down voting you here, I guess that means your free speech is being attacked as well?
No. I'm still allowed to comment aren't I? You are able to read my comments aren't you?
Certainly, even people like you can understand that having a billionaire purposefully sue you to bankrupt you is a tad different than downvotes.
None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up. They gambled that HH wouldn't be willing to fight them back, and that the money they made from all the hoo-haw would be enough to keep them in business - but such is life in the free world. Free to win, free to lose: the system is there for both sides of the coin.
No. They went out of business because they ran out of money to continue their legal defense.
> and the judge agreed with the plaintiff that they should pay damages.
No. Not the judge. The JURY.
> Instead of paying those damages, the people behind Gawker decided - using their own free will - that they would be better off shuttering the site.
They could have continue with the legal proceedings but they didn't have the funds.
> None of this happened because "the repression with the boots on faces, lol" - it happened because Gawker seriously, seriously fucked up.
Really? TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES published segments of the sex tape. TMZ and those sites are still around.
I already provided PROOF. You can repeat the same thing over and over again. It isn't going to magically turn true.
>but such is life in the free world.
Not in a free world. In a billionaire's world.
> the system is there for both sides of the coin.
Apparently, it's for the billionaire's.
Using your logic, TMZ and most of the sites would be out of business. After all, they published the sex tape images LONG BEFORE gawker. Okay?
You can spin it anyway you like. You are anti-free speech advocate.
Gawker gambled on their ability to stay in business while also committing vile acts of hatred using their right to free speech. They lost the gamble. They weren't told "you can't have free speech" - they were told "you caused this amount of damage, by exercising your rights" - and it was Gawker themselves who decided they could not take responsibility for that damage, so they shuttered themselves.
Gawker lost because they flaunted the law, and in spite of having a court order to cease their attacks on an individual, continued regardless. TMZ and MANY OTHER SITES did not flaunt the law, nor were they required to - as they were not the targets of the suit.
"You are anti-free speech": No, you are simply wrong. I'm pro-free speech. I just don't think that its the golden get-out-of-jail card that you think it should be. There are other rights granted us by society; when one set of rights is used to impinge upon another, that is a case for the legal system to administer. You are yet to demonstrate an understanding of this fact: You can say what you want, but if it causes me harm, I also can say what I want - and when a multi-million dollar company goes up against an individual, I'm very glad of the fact that these rights are adjudicated in court.
>Apparently, it's for the billionaire's.
Gawker=multi-million-dollar BUSINESS. HH=(admittedly wealthy) INDIVIDUAL.
Just whose side are you on there, buddy?
> who are truly the ones to suffer at the hands of all of these levels of irresponsibility.
The people are the ones to suffer?
No. The people suffer when their free speech rights are attacked.
Holy christ, the anti-free speech crusaders are in force today.