As far as the times go, keeping up with them means things change and society adjusts. If it doesn't it'll get left behind. What was once true then is not now. Laws that may have made sense then may not now. Laws that were never enacted then may have to be enacted now.

---

Am I the only one that thinks that the chick in the flick is doable?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So he bangs his best friends wife AND gets paid $115 million for it? Sign me up!

 

If I bang my wife's best friend instead of my best friend's wife, do I still the 115 million?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

So keeping up with the times means moving towards authoritarianism and a restriction of rights then? You're right, they never would've had the internet so we need to have speech codes. They never had automatic weapons so we need confiscatory gun control laws. Church? No one needs that anymore, we should ban it or at least <del>fine</del> tax those who choose to attend. The whole problem is that when someone gets to draw the line then that person has the power over where the line is. I'm not ok with that and you shouldn't be either.

It also means that I can vote, that you aren't allowed to own people anymore, children aren't allowed to work in factories any longer...etc etc etc. Those are things that changed to give people more rights, not a restriction of them. Put away your tin foil hat...no one is coming for your guns or your church just because you shouldn't show a sex tape online and call it news.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

If I bang my wife's best friend instead of my best friend's wife, do I still the 115 million?

No, but if you tell us about it after it happens, you're guaranteed your very own thread on here for it! :thumbsup:

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Am I the only one that thinks that the chick in the flick is doable?

 

Hulkster taint.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It also means that I can vote, that you aren't allowed to own people anymore, children aren't allowed to work in factories any longer...etc etc etc. Those are things that changed to give people more rights, not a restriction of them. Put away your tin foil hat...no one is coming for your guns or your church just because you shouldn't show a sex tape online and call it news.

 

That's great and I agree that those things never should've been permitted to begin with, but showing laws being removed doesn't justify laws being enacted, especially to specifically enumerated rights.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's great and I agree that those things never should've been permitted to begin with, but showing laws being removed doesn't justify laws being enacted, especially to specifically enumerated rights.

There wasn't a law enacted here. There was a right to privacy that was not allowed here which broke a current law.

 

What is sad is that this all could have been stopped 3 or so years ago. A judge simply asked the idiot at Gawker to take it done, and cited why. This pompous moron dug his heels in and it cost him.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

There wasn't a law enacted here. There was a right to privacy that was not allowed here which broke a current law.

 

What is sad is that this all could have been stopped 3 or so years ago. A judge simply asked the idiot at Gawker to take it done, and cited why. This pompous moron dug his heels in and it cost him.

 

I'm sure the appeal will be interesting.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm sure the appeal will be interesting.

I don't think the punishment fit, but I do think there needed to be some form of. The guy did himself no favors over the last 3-4 years, and looked even worse on the stand. He's a pompous jerk.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

That's great and I agree that those things never should've been permitted to begin with, but showing laws being removed doesn't justify laws being enacted, especially to specifically enumerated rights.

such as what? the right to show other people doing private things in a private home without consent? the right to disobey an order from a judge to take the video down? the right to invade someone else's privacy? Let me ask you this, if you made a private sex tape with your wife, and Gawker put it online (after you told them not to for all the world to see) would you still argue that it's all fine and dandy? What about if someone filmed your daughter ( at age 18) by hiding a camera in her bedroom in your home and put it online without consent...Would you still be saying it's ok?  

---

such as what? the right to show other people doing private things in a private home without consent? the right to disobey an order from a judge to take the video down? the right to invade someone else's privacy? Let me ask you this, if you made a private sex tape with your wife, and Gawker put it online (after you told them not to for all the world to see) would you still argue that it's all fine and dandy? What about if someone filmed your daughter ( at age 18) by hiding a camera in her bedroom in your home and put it online without consent...Would you still be saying it's ok?  

 

You should re-read the thread. Throwing out emotionally charged hypotheticals isn't going to change my opinion that freedom of the press is sacrosanct.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You should re-read the thread. Throwing out emotionally charged hypotheticals isn't going to change my opinion that freedom of the press is sacrosanct.

what a nice way of saying you won't answer the question (because then you would have to admit that you wouldn't be saying that what Gawker did was ok).. I think it's even more important to preserve privacy than it is to ensure the media can print or show whatever they please without regard to privacy or repercussion 

---

such as what? the right to show other people doing private things in a private home without consent? the right to disobey an order from a judge to take the video down? the right to invade someone else's privacy? Let me ask you this, if you made a private sex tape with your wife, and Gawker put it online (after you told them not to for all the world to see) would you still argue that it's all fine and dandy? What about if someone filmed your daughter ( at age 18) by hiding a camera in her bedroom in your home and put it online without consent...Would you still be saying it's ok?  

 

 

You should re-read the thread. Throwing out emotionally charged hypotheticals isn't going to change my opinion that freedom of the press is sacrosanct.

Actually his post is appropriate. I am assuming it's his first. He hits the nail on the head like so many others here have. You took a stance and have run with it even when common sense is presented.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

what a nice way of saying you won't answer the question (because then you would have to admit that you wouldn't be saying that what Gawker did was ok).. I think it's even more important to preserve privacy than it is to ensure the media can print or show whatever they please without regard to privacy or repercussion 

 

Well, you would be wrong. Giving the government the right to determine what is or is not "news" violates the Constitution and creates an atmosphere ripe for government censorship. Once the government gets to draw the line then they get to control it as well, and that is not something we should be willing to accept no matter how distasteful we find the outcomes in some cases. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is the correct perspective on this and all matters of free speech.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Actually his post is appropriate. I am assuming it's his first. He hits the nail on the head like so many others here have. You took a stance and have run with it even when common sense is presented.

 

Not really, my stance is perfectly logical and rational. It does not change based on the emotional aspects of the circumstances. Freedom of the press is more important that one individual's so called right to privacy.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well, you would be wrong. Giving the government the right to determine what is or is not "news" violates the Constitution and creates an atmosphere ripe for government censorship. Once the government gets to draw the line then they get to control it as well, and that is not something we should be willing to accept no matter how distasteful we find the outcomes in some cases. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is the correct perspective on this and all matters of free speech.

it's not a debate about what is news and what is not news....this is about what is private and personal...even people in the public eye are entitled to privacy in their own home...when they are out and about in public, that's one thing, but when they are in their own home not breaking the law, the presumption of privacy should apply...had one of the participants approached Gawker and tried to sell the tape, or simply gave them the tape, that would be a different story, however that is not the case...A person or persons in a person's own home, not breaking the law, and minding their own business are entitled to privacy

 

Actually his post is appropriate. I am assuming it's his first. He hits the nail on the head like so many others here have. You took a stance and have run with it even when common sense is presented.

I have posted a couple times in this thread, but it's been a while

---

Ahhh,ok. Just like Hogan is too. In the meantime they put Gawker on notice not to put it on their website but did anyhow. Illegally.

 

It's not journalism or news when posting a copy of a video when part of the party was not privy to it being filmed. If Gawker played the "But we didn't know card" then that makes them even less of a "news" outlet for not doing any research into it.

 

I think it's funny that he not so subtlely ignored this post.  Let's ignore the fact that Gawker knew the tape was stolen and decided to run with it anyway.  Let's ignore the fact that this was done in private, stolen from the people that were apart of the tape, and stolen from the person who filmed it without all parties knowing it was being filmed.  So there are layers of shadiness here.

 

Gawker couldn't just report the story that there was a tape and that Hogan was secretly taped.  They couldn't report that they were offered the tape knowing that it was stolen and contacted by Hulk Hogan because they knew they wouldn't get enough hits on their website by just doing that.  Posting the video is what was going to get hits!  That was what was going to be "news."

 

When it comes crashing down and it hurts inside, he's gotta take a stand, it don't help to hide.  They hurt his friends, and they hurt his pride, he's gotta be a man, he can't let it slide!  He's a real American, he fights for the rights of every man.  He fights for whats right, he fights for his life!

 

I think flsprtsgod forgot the above.  Him winning that lawsuit is like slamming King Kong Bundy and Andre the Giant at the same time! 

---

Well, you would be wrong. Giving the government the right to determine what is or is not "news" violates the Constitution and creates an atmosphere ripe for government censorship. Once the government gets to draw the line then they get to control it as well, and that is not something we should be willing to accept no matter how distasteful we find the outcomes in some cases. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is the correct perspective on this and all matters of free speech.

And by this post you are saying the Erin Andrews video is fine since some would call it "News" to them.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Not really, my stance is perfectly logical and rational. It does not change based on the emotional aspects of the circumstances. Freedom of the press is more important that one individual's so called right to privacy.

So someone's "so called rights to privacy" are trumped by a certain group so long as they think it's news? Ok, got ya. Talk about scary.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"