Quote:We're debating what is and isn't newsworthy. I don't believe the government should get to make that decision. In rendering this verdict the government has done so.
No, that s not the debate, nor is it what the decision was. The decision is about what was recorded in private between two people. If you feel this is legal then you must disagree with the verdict in the Erin Andrews case
In the Andrews case the defendant was the man who shot the footage and the company that permitted it to occur, not any of the sites that posted/reported it. Those two verdicts are not similar.
This article sums up what I feel about this case:http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/20/wh...amendment/
"This doesn’t mean Gawker should have posted the tape. They have every right to under the First Amendment, but they have to decide whether it’s really worth it. If I’d been in Gawker’s shoes I wouldn’t have posted the tape and probably would have given it to Hogan out of good will. His privacy was violated, but Gawker wasn’t the ones who did it. It was Bubba the Love Sponge for recording the video and his lackey for stealing it and selling it. All Gawker did was report what they were given. The press does have a responsibility to decide whether or not they want to report something, but ultimately it’s their decision. Lawsuits (or threats of lawsuits) and laws shouldn’t determine it."
So the website knows that the tape in question was obtained illegally, yet they still decided to post it. They thought it was worth it because they figured they'd make a lot of money. They got what they deserved in the judgement.
Quote:In the Andrews case the defendant was the man who shot the footage and the company that permitted it to occur, not any of the sites that posted/reported it. Those two verdicts are not similar.[/size]
This article sums up what I feel about this case:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/20/why-hulk-hogans-victory-over-gawker-is-a-stain-on-the-first-amendment/'>http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/20/why-hulk-hogans-victory-over-gawker-is-a-stain-on-the-first-amendment/</a>
"This doesn’t mean Gawker should have posted the tape. They have every right to under the First Amendment, but they have to decide whether it’s really worth it. If I’d been in Gawker’s shoes I wouldn’t have posted the tape and probably would have given it to Hogan out of good will. His privacy was violated, but Gawker wasn’t the ones who did it. It was Bubba the Love Sponge for recording the video and his lackey for stealing it and selling it. All Gawker did was report what they were given. The press does have a responsibility to decide whether or not they want to report something, but ultimately it’s their decision. Lawsuits (or threats of lawsuits) and laws shouldn’t determine it."[/size]
So you'd be okay with someone illegally recording your little girl or wife doing their thing in a public restroom/dressing room and selling it to an online site like Gawker because news?
Quote:So you'd be okay with someone illegally recording your little girl or wife doing their thing in a public restroom/dressing room and selling it to an online site like Gawker because news?
Or the editor from Gawker saying that he would post a sex tape from any celebrity 4 years and over?
Quote:So you'd be okay with someone illegally recording your little girl or wife doing their thing in a public restroom/dressing room and selling it to an online site like Gawker because news?
I'd take it out on the person responsible, not the news site.
Quote:I'd take it out on the person responsible, not the news site.
I'm sure it's easy to say that now, but I'm betting "Free Press" is the last thing your going to be thinking when your little girls goodies are splashed around for everyone to see.
Don't you think that a news story could be written about Hogan having sex with his best friend's wife without showing the accompanying tape and it still be news? There are daily reports in the news about murder victims without showing the photos of the actual body and the news is still conveyed. There was nothing news worthy about showing the tape rather than just reporting about its existence other than making money from it.
Quote:Or the editor from Gawker saying that he would post a sex tape from any celebrity 4 years and over?
Wonder what the criteria was for the cut off to be four and not three?? :blink:
Quote:I'm sure it's easy to say that now, but I'm betting "Free Press" is the last thing your going to be thinking when your little girls goodies are splashed around for everyone to see.
Don't you think that a news story could be written about Hogan having sex with his best friend's wife without showing the accompanying tape and it still be news? There are daily reports in the news about murder victims without showing the photos of the actual body and the news is still conveyed. There was nothing news worthy about showing the tape rather than just reporting about its existence other than making money from it.
No one said having principles was easy. And splashing a child's "goodies" around is a federal crime, the prosecution of which I fully endorse.
And there's nothing about the news that's anything
other than making money.
Quote:I'm sure it's easy to say that now, but I'm betting "Free Press" is the last thing your going to be thinking when your little girls goodies are splashed around for everyone to see.
Don't you think that a news story could be written about Hogan having sex with his best friend's wife without showing the accompanying tape and it still be news? There are daily reports in the news about murder victims without showing the photos of the actual body and the news is still conveyed. There was nothing news worthy about showing the tape rather than just reporting about its existence other than making money from it.
I think that's the crucial thing here. Gawker didn't report on the tape, they actively publicized while having reason to believe it was obtained illegally. Then they ignored cease-and-desist letters from Hogan as well as a direct court order. They even said outright; "A judge told us to take down our Hulk Hogan sex tape post. We won't."
As for freedom of press; freedom of speech has limitations; it doesn't protect obscenities. Freedom of religion has limitations; you can't marry 6 people at the same time. Even the second amendment has limitations; you can't by a GAU-8 anywhere. And freedom of press has limitations as well, such as in this case where it doesn't trump the right to privacy.
Quote:No one said having principles was easy. And splashing a child's "goodies" around is a federal crime, the prosecution of which I fully endorse.
And there's nothing about the news that's anything other than making money.
The Erin Andrews case isn't a whole lot different. By your definition it is a famous person, so it's news. She didn't know she was being taped either.
Quote:No one said having principles was easy. And splashing a child's "goodies" around is a federal crime, the prosecution of which I fully endorse.
And there's nothing about the news that's anything other than making money.
But slap a cry of the 1st amendment on it, and it's news, right? Wouldn't prosecuting them for doing it be an attempt to stifle the news?
Isn't recording someone without their knowledge also against the law? Or stealing someone's personal property? I'm not really sure which is the case here...were they filmed by the husband, or did someone steal their homemade tape? Either way, laws were broken, no? Isn't profiting from a crime also illegal?
Quote:I'm sure it's easy to say that now, but I'm betting "Free Press" is the last thing your going to be thinking when your little girls goodies are splashed around for everyone to see.
Don't you think that a news story could be written about Hogan having sex with his best friend's wife without showing the accompanying tape and it still be news? There are daily reports in the news about murder victims without showing the photos of the actual body and the news is still conveyed. There was nothing news worthy about showing the tape rather than just reporting about its existence other than making money from it.
That would be the sensible thing that pretty much any real
news organisation would do. The thing is, gawker is not a news website, it's an electronic tabloid.
Quote:But slap a cry of the 1st amendment on it, and it's news, right? Wouldn't prosecuting them for doing it be an attempt to stifle the news?
Isn't recording someone without their knowledge also against the law? Or stealing someone's personal property? I'm not really sure which is the case here...were they filmed by the husband, or did someone steal their homemade tape? Either way, laws were broken, no? Isn't profiting from a crime also illegal?
Therein lies the question about this whole thing.
Recording someone without their knowledge is in fact against the law. That would point the guilty party to the husband and his buddy that supposedly stole the tape and sold it, not the website. That is where this would be a criminal case.
However, the website in question chose to post the tape, which they most likely knew was obtained illegally, so in this particular case, yes they are partially at fault... especially for what the verdict is about. Remember, this was a
civil case, not a criminal case.
If someone were to steal say a bike from me and then take it to a pawn shop to sell. After it's sold to the pawn shop, the cops find it...isn't it the pawn shops responsibility and they have to give the bike back? They have to do their due diligence on how the bike was brought to them.
Kind of similar to the video, especially with something like this. Gawker needed to do their due diligence and make sure the video was not obtained illegally. I'm assuming they knew it was....
Quote:But slap a cry of the 1st amendment on it, and it's news, right? Wouldn't prosecuting them for doing it be an attempt to stifle the news?
Isn't recording someone without their knowledge also against the law? Or stealing someone's personal property? I'm not really sure which is the case here...were they filmed by the husband, or did someone steal their homemade tape? Either way, laws were broken, no? Isn't profiting from a crime also illegal?
Yes, so go after the people who did the taping, just like in the Andrews case.
Quote:Yes, so go after the people who did the taping, just like in the Andrews case.
He did sue "Bubba". I am no sure if it will be a separte trial or what. Both "Bubba" and the website are liable here. Your takes on this are terrible.
Quote:Yes, so go after the people who did the taping, just like in the Andrews case.
Dealing in stolen merchandise is also illegal.
Quote:He did sue "Bubba". I am no sure if it will be a separte trial or what. Both "Bubba" and the website are liable here. Your takes on this are terrible.
My takes on this are that the press is to remain free, that's all.
