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.

---