So I see a lot of journalists on twitter defending Gawker. In my opinion Gawker is making journalists look bad at first place. I believe in press freedom but is "revenge porn" freedom of press ? If an unknown party leaked that sex tape, most journalists would condemn that and not label it "freedom of speech" so why the double standard ?
Well, the Gawker empire already answered that question: they were highly critical of Reddit for hosting /r/fappening (rightly so, in my opinion), so it's more than a little rank to do an about face on this.
I certainly agree that it's difficult to see anything resembling a meaningful public interest in publishing the tapes - I'm surprised but pleased to see that the US courts didn't do their normal "you're a public figure so you have no rights" as tends to be the case with defamation or privacy cases.
Probably because they feel like they have to close ranks and defend a profession they see as being maligned. For them there is no grey, only black and white. All or nothing. For many other people there are degrees of freedom and rights.
Their fear is that if they concede on this point, what else will they have to concede and will their profession back them when they are in the same position, but for more noble reasons. Self preservation and principle.
They'd also get some peer pressure in the form of ostracism for breaking with the standard professional stance on the question.
Being maligned by whom? "Journalists" get to control the narrative on literally any topic they choose. They had to fuck up really hard to get the rest of the press to report against them, and even then this case isn't receiving anywhere near the coverage it deserves.
Personally, I think that while Gawker wasn't right to release the tape, fining them $115 million isn't right either. $115 million could easily sink Gawker entirely. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the place but it's a dangerous precedent to set for press freedom if a single editor's single bad decision can take down an entire site.
Of course, the amount is likely to be revised down in appeals.
While I respect that conclusion in general, I think that Gawker in particular has done a lot of sadistic and mean "reporting" which serves no public good. Them being sunk seems almost a public good in my opinion.
Indeed. The final straw for me was when they outed a Conde Nast exec, there was no scandal, no real story at all but they(Nick Denton) went ahead and destroyed this guy's life. You can read about it here:
I agree. However, my- or anybody's- personal opinion of a place should have no bearing on whether our judicial system decides to take an independent media outlet down during a court case involving one man.
Let me put it this way: I don't care for Gawker and wouldn't mind personally if it sank (though there are good journalists there doing good work); I do care for the potential chilling effect this could have on other media.
(And let me make clear that I do think Bollea should have been compensated and Gawker punished, just not with $115 million.)
I realize this judgment was based only on this case, but from my perspective, this isn't a single bad decision, but the latest in a series of bad decisions. Gawker posted an entirely unsubstantiated prostitution allegation against a competitor's executive, from a source who said straight up (in the article Gawker published!) that he was going public to make good on a blackmail threat. [1] They posted a video of a young woman possibly being raped, and told her to "not make a big deal out of this" when she begged them to take it down. [2]
Gawker was 100% in the wrong to release this tape, and they've shown a pattern of seriously abusive behavior before now. Some of sites in the Gawker network have decent writers with some integrity, and I'll be sorry that if need to find new employment; but Gawker as an entity is too corrupt to be salvaged.
It is certainly freedom of the press, and freedom of speech; but ultimately serves no public purpose. It's just also mean and ridiculous.
Freedoms of this nature must be protected regardless of the context. Gawker's unethical behaviour accross the network, from outing comfortably closeted gay people to failing to disclose obvious bias, is awful; but should not be forbidden. The cure is worse than the illness. My apologies to Matt Drudge if it seems like I'm making light of the action as intellectual pornography.
It is difficult because on one hand we need a free press as a cornerstone of being a free country. On the other hand they do blatantly abuse that power by printing rubbish that hurts people just to make a buck, and in a lot of cases just outright lie (see current presidential primaries coverage as an example).
There aren't really that many journalism jobs out there. Especially compared to the massive number of J-School grads that come on the the market each year.
Journalists look at Gawker writers and naturally think "There but for the grace of God, go I". So they have a lot of sympathy.
Yes. It is freedom of the press. Leaking the tape to the public should be punishable, but just broadcasting information obtained should not be. Gawker did not produced said sex tape.
On a personal level I would love to see Gawker the company fold - but punishing media for publishing true facts is troubling. After all Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener also had their privacy invaded. The idea of a media outlet being sued (although with good chance of winning the case) could hurt coverage of worthier targets.
Ugh, no thank you. I've liked some of Jerry's opinion pieces in the past, but I think he's way off the mark here, especially with this:
> The causes they enunciate are tarnished, just for being in their mouths.
That's the kind of thinking that gets you atrocious policy, especially in the judicial sphere. As I said below, people who want bad to enshrine bad precedent will pick the most unsympathetic targets in the courts in order to get it - including law enforcement (actually, especially law enforcement. Why isn't Apple helping the FBI stop terrorists???)
The courts sometimes see through this trick. Did you know that your Miranda rights exist because the Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a scumbag who had, indisputably, robbed and raped a mentally handicapped girl? It's sad that they didn't this time though, and that apparently the vox populi didn't either.
My wording probably could've been better, but the point still stands: you have legal protection from government overreach thanks to a court decision in favor of a rotten defendant. There are plenty of other examples throughout history if that one is not convincing.
If the government is required do something for you ("inform you of your rights", in this case), then wouldn't it be reasonable to say you say that you have the right to that service?
Miranda created the right to have the government inform you of your rights.
Exactly and that new right is actually very important. We should not expect the average person to have enough legal training to know their rights at all times.
I am sure Gawker didn't help their case with jurors when they said they would only draw a line at posting a sex tape of a four year old [1]. If they did have a chance of winning this case, they totally shot themselves in the foot with their testimony.
A lawyer prepping someone for testimony will say: "Remember, your job here is not to score points. All you want to do is to prevent points from being scored." Meaning don't lose your cool, never be glib, never make jokes, don't try to pretend you're smarter than the attorney, don't lie, but most of all, don't state anything more than the minimum necessary to answer the question.
Good advice that's too easily forgotten in the moment.
Very true. Last time I testified as a witness, as is occasionally required by my job, the lawyer reminded me "I know you've been here before. Simple answers. Never use a sentence when a word will do. Always 'yes' or 'no'. Never "yes, and blah blah" or "no, but blah blah".
I'm pretty sure we can all agree he was being sarcastic and flippant after hours of being on the stand. I'm not making excuses, but the NY Post loves them a way-skewed sensational headline that isn't so grounded in reality.
That one quip really embodies the entire case against Gawker I think. Daulerio was found personally liable as part of this verdict, and he had to know what the stakes were when he testified. By making himself look callous, unsympathic and irresponsible just to satisfy a fleeting desire to be sardonic he did himself zero favors with the jury.
It's not about scoring a zinger against the opposing counsel. It's about putting across your narrative with the jury. I highly doubt Daulerio's legal counsel thought that narrative should be that he's just a grade-A asshole. No surprise that someone who couldn't keep it together when it really mattered to him in a deeply personal way can't be trusted to maintain journalistic integrity during the day-to-day operations of a site.
I'm not sure how I feel about the verdict (freedom of speech vs privacy), but I'm really happy that the media sexist bias was exposed. It was really distasteful how they were criticising and condemning "The Fappening" (i.e. female stolen porn) while happily participating in the reverse (Hulk Hogan's male stolen porn).
Bollea's "porn" wasn't "stolen". It was created without his knowledge and circulated by the person who created it, which is how it leaked.
That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back.
It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact, probably will) be reversed on appeal.
The way I interpreted it was that their isn't a free speech angle to either.
>That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back.
According to Tampa police they think the tape was stolen by an employee of Bubba the Lovesponge[0]. The only essential difference I can see is that the photos of the female celebrities were created with their knowledge, which I don't think is much of a difference at all.
Sweden recently created a new law to explicit punish those who distribute sexual videos and images of a person without their consent. They don't distinguish if the images was stolen, created without the victims knowledge, or even created with consent. The law makers recognize the damage that non-consenting distribution cause.
The American people are more creative than you give us credit for. The Supreme Court strikes down popular laws all the time, and somehow we've managed to carry on.
Is it being created without his knowledge better or wore than what happened in the fappening? I'm not sure what your comment is trying to say. Both things sound pretty horrendous.
While both are horrendous, I think we can say that having intimate photos of you taken without your knowledge being spread is worth than having photos you took being spread. The reason being that in the first case your rights to privacy were actually violated twice.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. Anyway after further thought I came to agree with you because the person in the second situation also had their privacy violated twice when they had the video/images stolen from their device and when it was spread without their consent.
But I think it's pretty self-evident that doing multiple wrong things to do one final wrong thing is worse than just doing the final wrong thing.
He's pedantically pointing out a superficial difference between the two cases, and pretending as though he therefore demonstrated some profound ethical or moral difference between the two. Good job on calling him out on this and pinning him down!
The news stories weren't very clear on the stolen or not issue - sesutton's comment suggests that it was, but if it wasn't, that indeed would make Hulk's case worse. But only in the "legal" sense (Hulk's video wasn't pirated), not in the moral sense (both his and the girls' privacy was invaded eithout their consent), which is how Gawker et al. campaigned against Fappening... As I said, I was mostly criticising their hypocrisy.
I've long stopped reading Gawker for serious news or even entertainment...but I'm going to miss it as it is possibly the only independent online media outlet that actually made a profit. BuzzFeed might make a profit but NBC(Comcast) owns $200M of it [1]. Vox, too, got $200M from NBC [2]. Vice, as far as anyone can tell, is not near profitability (it just started its own TV channel), and has $400M from Disney [3]...and everyone else that is not a traditional news organization is not really on the radar for long-term viability.
What's sad is that this was pretty much an unforced error. They already got plenty of page views from the post that described seeing the tape. The editor who made the decision is no longer even there and failed at his own online media startup. What shouldn't be overlooked is how much Gawker invested in its own content-management system, Kinja...the estimates are as high as $20 million for what is literally a glorified, multi-site commenting system [4].
Very few online organizations could survive that kind of sunk investment...Gawker's editorial bent was such that it would post the Hogan tape just for the hell of it rather than to make pageview profit...but Gawker pretty much lost all of its great writers and reporters over the past two years, including Adrian Chen (who now seems to regularly turn huge features at the NYT and the New Yorker) and Nitasha Tiku.
I'm going to miss Deadspin especially. Sports news and entertainment was already monopolized by ESPN/Disney...we don't even have Grantland anymore.
I'm not sure if this news has circulated widely beyond people who listen to his podcast[0], but Bill Simmons (founder of Grantland, creator of '30 for 30'; fired by ESPN/Disney last year after criticizing Roger Goodell) has hired the core of Grantland's former writers, editors and staff, to start 'The Ringer':
Currently half-launched as an email newsletter, presumably while the infrastructure for a proper website is being developed.
If Deadspin does indeed shut down after this (... though I think the people in this discussion are taking this as far more of a given than it is), then there will be a massive hole in this side of independent sports media, that The Ringer would be a top contender for filling.
So let's see. Hulk Hogan is worth $25M according to the interwebs. His reputation is in tatters for the video of him doing something he did. So he gets awarded almost 5 times as much for lost earnings, as he is worth total?
Of course we all know this will go to appeal, where the real fate will be decided. Gawker does not have 115M to pay, and Hulk is not likely to find himself 5x richer.
The real question is where does the First Amendment end up with this ruling? That is the change (or not) that would matter most to the average citizen.
I'm personally not worried about the 1st. I'm personally not a lawyer either, so there's that...
Ya know how if you buy a car second hand, and it turns out the car is stolen, you have to give it back, even if you bought it honestly?
This feels similar to me. He never gave consent and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. While you can't give him back his privacy here, the video never existed in a public domain sans-crime, so it's publishing (much like your ownership and monetary outlay) is secondary. Except that here, Gawker was a party to the crime.
For me, the 1st doesn't trump privacy. I have no doubt others feel differently.
My understanding was that the constitution was only relevant to government action. Since this is a civil lawsuit, the First Amendment should not be relevant, should it?
It's like how the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms and the government can't take that away from you but a landlord can keep you from having a gun in your apartment.
If this was a criminal case the First Amendment would be relevant (by my understanding) but since it's civil, it's irrelevant.
Right because there's nothing more accurate than typing "what is ___ ____'s net worth" into a google search. You have no idea what his earning potential with WWF or anyone else that severed their association with him based on this.
How do you find a number for emotional distress? I get the feeling numbers in US lawsuits are made up and adjusted for the receiver -- I.e you can sue McDonalds for a larger sum after burning on a cup of coffee than you can the coffee shop on the corner, despite your own costs/damages being the same? Isn't that using a lawsuit as a kind of punishment, something which should be reserved for a criminal case?
I think you misread my comment: I don't mind a corporation getting a steep fine -- my point is that it is a punishment and as such it should be handled in a criminal case.
Letting individuals arbitrarily decide punishments and then processing them in civil cases it the crazy part. Not that a corporation can make a mistake and have to pay $100M, that happens everywhere, and that works.
It would be equally crazy if A could sue B and demand B went to prison for 200years for no other reason than A finding it an appropriate amount of time.
I'm aware. But if I sue someone it's to cover my damages, not damage the other party. If McD were found liable for causing injury you'd think someone in management would be held responsible in a criminal case and there is a risk of the individual and or the corporation being fined a huge amount by a criminal court.
The difference is that a multi million fine would be awarded by a criminal court, since it is a punishment, and the money would go to the government and not to whoever got a hot coffee. It's perfectly fine if a small business would be fined 1% of their revenue, and McDonald's would be too.
I know this is probably some quirk of the US legal system but I really don't understand the benefits of having civil courts dealing with punishments that seem arbitrarily set by one part in the case rather than by law.
...to cover my damages, not damage the other party.
If this were the normal thought process, vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed. Lots of things can happen to a plaintiff. Sure, she could win, in which case her attorneys' fees are typically subtracted from the damages. She could also lose, in which case she typically has to pay the attorneys. She could also lose in such a fashion that she could suffer other economic penalties as well. If compensation were the best possible outcome from a lawsuit, many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint about McDonald's.
Of course, that might be a better society in which to live, but it would be a very different society.
I suppose, and this would be a net win for everyone, except lawyers?
> many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint
Again isn't that a positive thing? If you feel a law was broken you tell the police, if it wasn't, you post a bad review?
> that might be a better society
Isn't the US legal system the odd one? I might be wrong here. What's the lawyers-to-population ratio or legal-fees-per-lifetime compared to other systems? I admit I have no data but my gut says "not good".
Oh yeah I agree this would be a vast improvement. I don't think it will happen while the current Constitution remains in force, however. Certainly there's no legal way to rein in the lawyers.
Preemptive for the "just send a letter to Congress" simpletons: for the half of Congress who aren't themselves lawyers, why will my letter be more persuasive than the very active lawyer lobby that gives them millions of dollars? Why will the lawyer president not veto your magical bill? Why will the lawyer judges in every court in the land not overturn it?
Its about the First Amendment encroaching upon the right to privacy. Where is the line drawn. That was what this trial is sincerely about.
Privacy outweighs the first amendment at this stage. But lets remember, that Gawker is a pretty far stretch to say they are living within the 1st amendment rights.
Only $55m of the amount decided thus far was due to perceived economic damage. Also, punitive damages will be decided next week, and I fully expect they will be quite high given the way Gawker has presented themselves and the internal workings that have been shown in court.
The economic damages are perhaps on the high side, but considering all of the ways Hogan has been able to license his brand up to this point -- and that those avenues are likely no longer open to him or at least greatly reduced -- it isn't out of the question that he could have earned that amount over the next 20 years.
And not just for his lifetime, but also that of his estate once he passes. Hulk Hogan is, at this point, a brand with merchandise, video rights, and so on.
I don't like Gawker either. But seeing people praise this decision merely because Gawker sucks, while casually dismissing other concerns, including the serious First Amendment ramifications, makes me very uneasy.
What serious First Amendment ramifications are these?
The First Amendment doesn't give you free reign to say whatever you like whenever you like, and there are already limitations on the First Amendment with regards to things like obscenity and speech that appeals to prurient interests:
What are the legitimate First Amendment ramifications here? Gawker published a sex tape of Hogan. And this wasn't a Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian "maybe they leaked it themselves" style sex tape. This was a "security camera footage, he might not have even known he was being recorded" sex tape. That isn't an issue of freedom, it is an issue about sexually victimizing someone.
Distributing naked pictures of someone without their consent has never been legal. The fact that they were taken in the cameraman's home is no defense. This is no different than a frat boy putting a hidden camera in the frathouse bathroom before a party and then distributing pics of freshman girls with their pants down.
There is none. The ruling isn't a threat to free speech at all. The trial was never about whether or not the content constituted obscenity or any other measure that would involve the Miller rule. This case was about damage to someone's life and career.
When I was in college a girlfriend stole a video she had let me make of us. Should I have to worry about that coming back to haunt me for the rest of my life? Guess I should've taken care of it back then!
In many states you don't have to pay until the appeals process is complete, but in Florida you have to pay (or at least post a bond, it's unclear) immediately. There's a good chance Gawker will be closing down.
"he website claimed that along with Chubb Insurance Co., it had agreed to forgo $600,000 in defense costs in exchange for Nautilus’ agreement to defend it from July 2013 onward. In a motion for summary judgment filed in October 2014, Nautilus said that its policy only covered “accidents,” and said that Gawker’s intentional release of the tape and its accompanying story didn’t qualify. Gawker responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment in November, arguing that its policy covered damages from bodily injury, which “indisputably include emotional distress and mental anguish” under New York law. Friday’s settlement put an end to those competing motions."
Putting aside the matter of case itself, I'm getting a lot of schadenfreude out of watching Gawker fail to hold itself to the same standards it keeps for everyone else.
As of now, two plus hours after TechCrunch [1], BBC [2], Recode [3], CNN [4], Buzzfeed [5], HN [6], Ars Technica [7], Wired [8], Slate [9] and countless other sites have all published articles about the verdict, Gawker's site is silent on the topic. And this comes after they've done daily articles throughout the trial, but now the pill is apparently too bitter to swallow.
I don't think that being first is always best, but Gawker sure seemed to think so up until now. Apparently reveling in public about their own misfortune is finally the bridge too far.
I agree that we live in a country With a constitution that gives us free speech, but while we have the right to say something, that doesn't relieve us of the responsibility of what we say.
Gawker had every right to post this video, they also now have the full responsibility for the consequences. This case has established that you can still post sex tapes, but you now run the very real risk of loosing a lot in doing that.
This court case doesn't say you can't, it just says that doing it could be prohibitively expensive to do it.
So obviously the next step is to form a shell company, put a sucker with no money in charge of it, incorporate that off shore, and host anything shady with them, not cooperate or collaborate with them wink wink (just like political candidates do not coordinate with superpacs wink wink).
Everyone on the Internet from ACLU and EFF will rightly defend the right to link. Well, the sleazy tabloids will continue doing what they do.
This is no win for privacy because it only protects those who are willing to go to court over this. Gawker is scum (particularly for doxxing people) but Hulk Hogan is no saint either.
Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent, keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem for an already-struggling ecosystem. (Although in fairness, this incident is particularly egregious, especially as they disobeyed a judge's order to take down the video)
From a legal perspective, this case only sets precedent in Florida (it was tried at the state not federal level) unless it manages to worm its way up to the Supreme Court and get heard. While there are less important states it could have been heard in, there are also considerably more important states where the precedent could be used to greater impact. I'm undecided on whether that's good or bad.
Financially speaking, the jury has objectively awarded Hogan a ton of money ($15mm more than he was seeking even) -- and punitive damages have not even been decided yet! It's not inconceivable that the total amount will approach Gawker's entire net worth. But that isn't how damages are decided -- something like this can clearly have a considerable negative lasting impact on the ability to earn in the future, and I think it's clear in this case that Hogan has been impacted in this way. I'm sure that played into the jury's math. Without knowing more about their deliberations, I think it's too early to say if they erred on the high side.
From the perspective of media companies starting to worry about being torn to shreds for posting this sort of thing, all I can say is "good". Freedom of speech is extremely important. A free press is extremely important. Posting an illegally obtained sex tape and then further refusing to remove it is not a victory for either, it is sleaziness and pandering to the lowest denominator of society to make a buck.
The best way to combat that tendency of some parts of the media is to make the buck not worth grabbing -- when you risk having to pay it back ten times over.
They do deserve it. Not because they are a terrible site, but because of their actions that resulted in this case.
This isn't some random act of happenstance that put Gawker in trouble. It was something brought about entirely by their own actions and decisions.
It's not a bad thing to have a legal precedent that says you cannot post private sex tapes online, without permission, and then refuse to take them down when ordered by the court.
Most people would have agreed with that without needing to be told it by the court.
I guess however there was enough financial incentive for Gawker to keep the tape up even after being ordered to take it down, and if that's the bed you're going to make, no-one will feel sorry for you when you have to lie in it.
Yes, the outcome is fair based on their actions. I'm not disputing that in the slightest. (I added the no-ad-hominem qualifier to avoid getting the comments on this submission derailed. Which was wishful thinking in retrospect.)
> this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money
You're eliding some very important details. The precedent it sets is for individuals whose private sex tapes have been published against their will to sue media companies for massive amounts of money.
If I made a private sex tape, and it were somehow published, I'd want to be able to sue for it too. Whatever happened to tech nerds being in favor of privacy? I don't want the government snooping on my phone calls and I don't want media shit-tards spreading my sex tapes. It all falls under the umbrella of privacy to me.
Oh the poor struggling ecosystem of sanctimonious bloggers who have completely pissed on this idea of a "fifth estate" by collusively censoring all discussion of how they suck.
That will be soooo terrible if we set a precedent that "journalists" actually have to actually give a shit about the standards of their alleged profession.
What's wrong about a precedent that an online blog platform should not be permitted to publish people's sex tapes? That does not seem like a particular dangerous precedent to me.
> Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent, keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem for an already-struggling ecosystem. (Although in fairness, this incident is particularly egregious, especially as they disobeyed a judge's order to take down the video)
1) Nonconsensual porn shouldn't be posted to the internet. The details can be discussed just fine without the visual.
2) It most certainly shouldn't be kept online after a judicial order to take it down.
> The term is also often misused to describe non 'revenge' scenarios, including nonconsensual pornography distributed by hackers or by individuals seeking profit or notoriety
I stand by my opinion of the term, it's completely inane, but after risking a search on it, 'only' the first 8 out of 10 results were rape-related porn videos, so it seems to be also used by major sites in the sense you used it.
It's the first time I've ever seen the term. Since it seems to be (somehow) a relatively established term for this kind of thing, I guess I'm wrong to ask you to not use it, but I think it's meaning is confusing, and I'd probably just call it a private sex tape.
And I realize it's not cool to mention downvotes, but to the people who downvoted the simple question/request I made about this... seriously?
I didn't downvote, but if you want to avoid them you could try using slightly different wording. E.g. sympathizing that a better term isn't readily available, rather than words which some will read as unnecessary criticism and or sounding exasperated.
Like, "I wish there was a better term for this, it makes it sound like a rape video." Actually it's hard to find exactly the right succinct term...
Isn't the succinct term (since at least Pam Anderson) "sex tape"?
I wrote it the way I did, which I don't think was that bad, because out of about 40 posts, two used the term (which I had never heard of before in this sense) "nonconsensual porn", and they were both by the same poster.
What does non-consensual mean in this sense BTW? Does it mean someone is recorded without their consent, or a site publishes someone's video without their consent?
And the downvotes keep coming, and for sp332, for simply agreeing and suggesting an alternative, and for my reply to sp332, so it's clearly not simply about how I phrased the question. Some weird people here.
Edit: Hahaha. Someone's upset, downvoting every post of mine here.
> Hahaha. Someone's upset, downvoting every post of mine here.
OT: I didn't downvote this comment, but I do tend to downvote any comment that mentions downvotes out of the belief that it mentioning it completely detracts from the conversation. Frankly, you should edit your comments to remove the downvote remarks.
Upvotes and downvotes aren't about burying/promoting content. They're about maintaining a certain baseline of quality.
Talking about downvotes is flat out boring and it adds nothing to the conversation. Therefore, I'm disengaging from this conversation and strongly encourage you to do the same.
>Upvotes and downvotes aren't about burying/promoting content. They're about maintaining a certain baseline of quality.
You can maintain quality without encouraging or enabling negativity (downvoting). Simply upvote comments you think are quality.
The fact that not only was my comment downvoted, but also a comment agreeing with me, demonstrates that people were downvoting because they have a different point of view (which I personally believe is the main reason people downvote anywhere, including here), or for some other petty reason.
My annoyance with this is not just because a reasonable comment of mine was buried, it's because I see this happen all the time here. Totally reasonable comments being whited out at the whim of a couple of people, for whatever reason they like, is irritating and detrimental to a thread and to the site.
>Talking about downvotes is flat out boring and it adds nothing to the conversation.
And the best way to avoid that is don't allow downvotes for comments in the first place. They're not necessary, they encourage negativity rather than positivity, and they're wide open to be abused/misused.
>Therefore, I'm disengaging from this conversation and strongly encourage you to do the same.
Fair enough. Like you, I will also disengage from this conversation after having said what I wanted to say.
Edit: and 3 more downvotes (across multiple comments, not just this one) immediately (within a few minutes) after posting this, simply for having the audacity to reply to a post to me, thus proving my point about abusive, petty downvoting.
Apparently in this case it means both... The recording was allegedly made without Hogan's consent and also published without his consent. So perhaps "unauthorized sex tape" but that doesn't really get the point across either.
Thanks. That's how I understood it after reading a bit more about it, but wasn't 100% sure, so I appreciate the answer. I guess there's no good succinct term that's clear for unusual situations like this.
Just a suggestion for the future, if you want someone to change the words you may want to mention the change you'd prefer at the time so its an option given HN's edit window.
I didn't mean for you to edit your posts (I didn't even think of that actually) I meant could you change it for future posts, since you'd already made two posts with that term.
Funny thing is, if anything, I expected people to agree with the sentiment expressed. That it's virtually buried - and the one person who openly agreed, and suggested an alternative, was also downvoted - blows my mind.
Unauthorized is certainly better than non-consensual, particularly in a sex-related context, but I would also even question the word porn.
I know it's commonly used as in 'revenge porn' but is it 'porn' when people record themselves having sex for private use? Seems to me it trivializes takes away from the issue, which is an invasion of privacy.
In fact don't know exactly what Gawker showed, but if the content was pornographic they would presumably be responsible, as all porn publishers are, for complying with record keeping under 18 USC 2257. An impossibility in this case.
At best this is an argument for tort reform*. Gawker's actions here are not defensible.
Edit: meaning improved protections against baseless lawsuits that could be damaging regardless of their merit. The simple way to protect your news company from being sued for releasing leaked sex tapes is to simply not release leaked sex tapes, which I think will be the major takeaway from this case.
On the topic of tort reform, I'd suggest the documentary Hot Coffee. It obviously has a bias but it really made an impact on how I view these large settlements.
These huge sums are required to set an example and not just be a fine. If he only won $500,000, then then next time a similar situation arises it just becomes a math question. Can they can earn more than $500,000 by releasing and paying the "fine".
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Punitive Damages are intended to prevent X from becoming too small.
Frankly setting a precedent that allows people to sue for egregious exposure of private data seems long overdue. I hope this is another step in developing a body of law that protects privacy in the digital age. Next up is negligent exposure of financial and health data.
Exactly. Looking around on Twitter and in the comments sections of other sites reporting on this verdict, I'm seeing a worryingly positive response based on nothing but negative feelings about Gawker. Yes, Gawker sucks, but never forget that there are bad people who want to pick easy targets for example cases in order to set bad judicial precedent, and this is some truly atrocious precedent.
What exactly is the atrocious precedent here? This wasn't speech about someone, it wasn't noteworthy speech of someone's actions, it was speech about someone's very private actions. In many states it's illegal to record a private conversation unless both people consent, and yet somehow making a sex tape without someone's knowledge and releasing is a worse precedent?
There is no slippery slope here. Free speech advocates should look in another castle.
What's the precedent? If you try to ruin someones ability to earn a living you can be sued for it?
What struggling ecosystem? The tabloid industry? Gawker is little more than a tabloid. And as far as I know the vapid tabloid industry is doing just fine.
> Before anyone goes on a "Gawker is a terrible site, they deserve it" tangent, keep in mind that this does set precedent for other individuals to sue other media companies for massive amounts of money, which could be another problem for an already-struggling ecosystem.
In the case of this particular ecosystem, I'm still not seeing the downside.
Haven't we already had court cases against people running those sites? The wiki page for the topic already lists three or four US cases where the people running said sites have been prosecuted or sent to prison.
We didn't need this court case to get a precedent for that.
Most of Gawker is terrible, but if the company goes down I hope Jalopnik survives in some form. They write good articles about cars and racing, and appear to maintain high ethical standards. http://jalopnik.com
I expect every "sub-property" will be sold to someone, although perhaps not for much money. Perhaps some other car-focused site will make the trustee an offer...
Both sides in this case were utterly contemptible. I would have found that Gawker invaded Hogan's privacy and awarded Hogan one dollar in damages, leaving everyone unhappy but the lawyers.
Invasion of privacy, despite its questionable origins, is now generally recognized as a valid tort and outside of the protections of the First Amendment. No new precedent is being set here.
I don't think Bollea is a particularly good person, but I'm not clear on how his conduct in this controversy was "contemptible".
For the 1A concern here, consider the Anthony Weiner case, in which indisputably private photos of Weiner were also published. I don't like that they were (I think he could have been just as effectively ejected from public life with good writing) but it's concerning to think that he'd have a tort hammer to swing to keep the story from coming out at all.
I agree that the Anthony Weiner case is similar, but there's also a very different argument in play with publishing those photos.
A public official exposed behaving inapropriately or hypocritically is much more obviously a matter of public interest -- to the people who elected him based on a different representation of values -- than exposing the inner workings of an entertainer's sex life. Gawker tried to stake their claim on the public interest basis in this case and lost. In my opinion, that decision was correct.
I also wish that sex scandals didn't have power over political careers because of the perverse incentives that it creates for politicians to behave in certain ways.
Weiner also could have sued over his photos, and possibly should have been able to win his case. To me, if he does the job that he's elected to do then it shouldn't matter what he does on his own time. With the caveats that those actions are within the law, and also that I did not and would not ever vote for him.
Even if Weiner had sued it wouldn't have changed the course of his scandal, based on what we've seen in other cases. Look how long it has taken for Hogan's case to be adjudicated, and it has hardly wiped the memory of his sex tape from the public consciousness.
As you noted, good writing should be sufficient in a case like Weiner's to eject him from office. Similarly, in a case like Bollea's, good writing should be sufficient to get to the public all that is newsworthy.
That good writing can mention that the author has seen the photos or videos, and describe them as necessary to support the story.
Of course, if the photos and videos are not published the subject might accuse the publication of lying, but the original publication can show the photos or videos to other publications who can also write stories about them.
In a case like Weiner's, I don't think the public would believe him if it came down to several major newspapers all reporting that they had seen the photos first hand, versus Weiner saying that they are all lying.
If the subject tries to sue a publication over their written story, the photos or videos will be evidence for the defense, and the likelihood of them getting out to the public goes way up. That should provide quite a bit of discouragement of intimidation lawsuits.
I would think that in a case like Weiner's if Weiner says the writer is lying, send him an offical warning that the publication will release the audiovisual proof if he insists. Hilarity ensues.
So... are you saying that if a celebrity talks openly, even boastfully, about their sex life, then it is free speech to publish a sex tape that was recorded without their consent?
In the Wiener case he was sending the pictures of his crotch via SMS. There's no expectation of privacy from content that you've shared willingly, no matter how perverted the content.
if someone decides to sms bank account info to their spouse, is it then appropriate that their account info is published, because they have no expectation of privacy?
He didn't send it to his spouse, he sent it to non-spouse woman he was flirting with.
It's not the channel of SMS that makes it fair game, it's that he explicitly shared it with a third person. It could have been a telegraph message, a voicemail, or a hand drawn picture. The point is that he publicly shared it.
