They didn't post the Hogan sex tape cause it had a racial slur. Hell, the racial slurs weren't even in the original tape posted. They just added it two years later as a way to gain sympathy for that case. Had they posted transcripts or audio (or even blurred video) of Hogan saying the n-word origionally, my opinion of the case would've been very different. But they didn't.It changes whether or not that tape would be considered newsworthy. Maybe they should have only played the audio but a public figure being racist is newsworthy no matter the context.
First off, I just wanna say that I cannot believe I'm explaining what revenge porn is to someone on GAF, let alone in general lol
Secondly revenge porn is when you have sex with someone (typically an ex or soon-to-be ex) and then make it public as a way of getting "revenge" for them scorning you. As far as I know, nobody at Gawker had sex with Hogan so what they did can't be classified as revenge porn.
I...ugh...rest my case.
Ok. Cool. Why are we even talking about it. I've agreed with you twice that it wasn't revenge porn already. It's still illegal and immoral to post a sex tape without someones consent and is every bit as wrong as revenge porn. Yes?
Good.
Been there : )I never denied it was wrong. I'm just someone staying up past his bedtime who got tripped up on semantics.
ITT: Posting sex tapes of people without their consent is not just acceptable but commendable as long as I dress it up as journalism.
A whole new avenue of wealth has opened up for me. Thanks, GAF!
Again, Obama and Trump had been briefed on it at that point. That made it and what it said newsworthy.
Funny thing, the view you're describing is reprehensible and would be clearly bannable if anyone actually espoused it, and yet I've read through the whole thread and haven't banned anyone. Wonder why that is.
This is such a clueless defense. Might as well just admit you don't believe in a free press. You believe in a limited press under your own guidelines, guidelines that are outlined by the U.S. justice system, the same justice system that rich white men have been wielding and twisting to their advantage since America was formed. You really have no scope or understanding of how much deeper this goes than simply one journalistic outlet being closed down, and its infuriating.
Publishing an illegaly acquired sex tape or outing gay men seems a bit different than reporting sex crimes.
I'm not saying "ban this guy," but people in this thread (and other Gawker threads) have explicitly made the bizarre and disgusting argument that posting sex tapes without consent as just another form of acceptable journalism, and that everybody who disagrees "doesn't believe in a free press."
BTW, Gawker did take down the sex tape. They left up the post that originally had the sex tape. They were within their rights to keep the post up.
I'll never defend what Gawker did, they shouldn't have done it. But the way they were bankrupted was sleazy and wrong and now we have publishers actively dancing to the tune of these wealthy men. It should not have taken so long to get Ronan Farrow's piece on Weinstein published. The Price article shouldn't have had to be shopped around to over six different outlets. Journalists keep telling you all that this didn't happen before the Gawker verdict. But go ahead and ignore them if it helps you sleep at night. Just know that every single one of our institutions at this point are under attack from without and within. Whether it's Russia spreading fake news, our own government promoting lies and taking down facts off of official websites, or lawyers threatening journalists in order to create a chilling effect. Truth is under siege at the moment and it's important to look at how we got here.
Didn't Gawker get in trouble due to things like not taking down a sex tape when a judge told them to do so.
The legal argument used against gawker for the Hulk Hogan coverage wouldn't apply to a publication doing public interest coverage with correct use of sources.
Not surprising that Peter Thiel stans post here and don't see or don't care about how thoroughly manipulated the courts were by that rich piece of shit sociopath. "B-b-but this is different" is a really pathetic excuse to justify what happened to Gawker. When it happens to other media organizations you'll find a similarly short sighted and weak justification for that, too, I'm guessing.
You can think what Gakwer did was sleazy, but a free press is a free press. Either you stand for a free press or you don't. The encroachment and chilling effect is very, very real even if you refuse to see it.
The legal argument used against gawker for the Hulk Hogan coverage wouldn't apply to a publication doing public interest coverage with correct use of sources.
There is a difference between a press org making a mistake and paying a punishment for it, and a press org making a mistake and being completely bankrupted for it. Wealthy men like Thiel systematically dismantling the entire free press of this country becomes remarkably easy after what he did to Gawker, and he uses the emotional reaction people like you have to the mistake Gawker made so that you feel like he's a moral crusader for bankrupting them. Bankrupting them is really the least important part of all this, what's important is the ripple effect that has had across journalism as a whole. The chilling effect. Even before this, journalists were afraid of taking on wealthy individuals, but now?
I'm not saying "ban this guy," but people in this thread (and other Gawker threads) have explicitly made the bizarre and disgusting argument that posting sex tapes without consent as just another form of acceptable journalism, and that everybody who disagrees "doesn't believe in a free press."
People still defend Gawker. Amazing.
On topic: This was a thing before Gawker, and will be for a long time. If you try to post an article outing a heavy hitter for anything you better have some damn good evidence or the backlash is gonna be ugly. And thats not actually a bad thing, unless you think people should be able to throw out any fabricated story as news and get away with it.
You are missing the forest for the trees here, the article in question was not found to be legally questionable in any way, it was turned down 6 times because it's not worth the risk to go after the rich and powerful no matter how well sourced the reporting is. That's the chilling effect.
How would you feel if the trump pee tape was real. Is that in the public interest to publish?
I don't give a shit about Peter Thiel. I will be honest I do not know who he is other than the fact that he was outed by Gawker and bankrolled Hogan's case against them. I don't particularly care who he is. I'm not an American and don't care much for your politics.
But anyway, I stand for a open press but one that is also curtailed to a certain extent by other people's human and legal rights, such as the right to privacy. Those rights should not be trampled on unless it is very clearly in the public interest to do so. I support libel and defamation laws.
I absolutely do not support an 'absolute' freedom of the press that tramples on individual human rights, and I imagine very, very few people do. It's the same way that I don't support an 'absolute' right to free speech. And I absolutely do not support disgusting behaviour such as outing a gay man or publishing a private sex tape. Both of those things should rightly be worthy of damages being awarded to the victim, and worthy of further punitive damages to discourage and prevent any other press from doing the same thing. If that bankrupts a publication, I'll shed no tears for them.
The Gawker decision was a step in the right direction, not the wrong one - whether it had bankrupted them or not. It's just a shame that your legal system means that it took a billionaire to fight them on an even playing field.
All a publication has to do to avoid what happened to Gawker is not do the immoral things that they did and not trample over people's rights to privacy when the public interest is not served one iota by the publication of private information.
That is NOT a high bar to set. It is the correct bar to set. If it ever happens to a publication I liked, they will have deserved it too.
Yes, but that's hard and doesn't get clicks, the press is finished! What a catastrophe!
That's because every time some blogger has a half researched story and someone won't publish it, they can just say it's the Gawker effect.It's a weird premise for a story because Harvey winestein threatened to sue the New Yorker and NY times and they posted the story anyway.
I still remember how one of the chiefs at Gawker said in a deposition that they'd be willing to publish a sex tape featuring an 8 year old. That's some top notch legaling.
I still remember how one of the chiefs at Gawker said in a deposition that they'd be willing to publish a sex tape featuring an 8 year old. That's some top notch legaling.
So the rich should be able to control the press and the media. Gotcha. You're either naive or something far worse. The free press absolutely is at risk and when you start talking about the first amendment being permitted only when you deem something moral or "deserving", you're playing right into Thiel's hands. You should probably educate yourself on who he is, what he did, and how the justice system bends to the wealthy in America. That is, if you want to argue from a place of intelligence rather than blind fucking ignorance.
Like, you are flat out saying that people like him should decide what is and isn't in the public interest. Be it willfully or through ignorance, your vision of what the press should be is dictated on the terms of the elite. That is where this road goes that you're gleefully accepting without even understanding the full scope of the Gawker situation.
You are missing the forest for the trees here, the article in question was not found to be legally questionable in any way, it was turned down 6 times because it's not worth the risk to go after the rich and powerful no matter how well sourced the reporting is. That's the chilling effect.
While I had a general statement from Hackett addressing the need for respect in the workplace, initially she didn't directly confirm that the episode had taken place. Ultimately, she gave The Information a statement confirming a ”troubling incident with Roy" and an investigation, but the earlier version of her statement was not definitive and none of my other sources would speak on the record.
How fucking hard is it for people to understand that a media company being bankrupted by a third-party-financed lawsuit for publishing true information about a public figure has a chilling effect on other media organizations considering whether to publish damaging information about other public figures?
Very fucking hard, apparently.
Y'all can twist it all you want, Gawker publishing a private sex tape and getting sued is not protected by journalism standards. They got what they deserved.
That doesn't excuse Hogan being a racist.
The tide is turning in these bubblesIm glad the tide is turning on this, I remember being one of the very few people who defended gawker on here and pointed out the chilling effect this would have when this first happened
This is such a clueless defense. Might as well just admit you don't believe in a free press. You believe in a limited press under your own guidelines, guidelines that are outlined by the U.S. justice system, the same justice system that rich white men have been wielding and twisting to their advantage since America was formed. You really have no scope or understanding of how much deeper this goes than simply one journalistic outlet being closed down, and its infuriating.
If "free press" is supposed to mean "they can write whatever they want, without any consequence" then I would say anyone sane would be against it. Thankfully that's not how most people would interpret "free press"This is such a clueless defense. Might as well just admit you don't believe in a free press.
So topic has literally nothing to with Gawker, people just want to relitigate how wrong what happened to Gawker was, huh?
I still remember how one of the chiefs at Gawker said in a deposition that they'd be willing to publish a sex tape featuring an 8 year old. That's some top notch legaling.
*Four year old.
Public interest amirite
Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy? asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.
If they were a child, Mr. Daulerio replied.
Under what age? the lawyer pressed.
Four.
The exchange in question.
He's obviously joking with the four year old answer guys.
Joking under oath?The exchange in question.
He's obviously joking with the four year old answer guys.
He probably shouldnt have done it in an open court.
Joking under oath?
The exchange in question.
He's obviously joking with the four year old answer guys.
Didn't Gawker get in trouble due to things like not taking down a sex tape when a judge told them to do so.
This is especially absurd given how this forum is otherwise concerned with recent sexual harassment scandals and the harmful effects of a radical obsession with "free speech." Yet all that gets thrown out the window when the sexual abuser is a rich, profit-driven corporation hiding behind a veneer of journalism?
He probably shouldnt have done it in an open court.
Not surprising that Peter Thiel stans post here and don't see or don't care about how thoroughly manipulated the courts were by that rich piece of shit sociopath. "B-b-but this is different" is a really pathetic excuse to justify what happened to Gawker. When it happens to other media organizations you'll find a similarly short sighted and weak justification for that, too, I'm guessing.
You can think what Gakwer did was sleazy, but a free press is a free press. Either you stand for a free press or you don't. The encroachment and chilling effect is very, very real even if you refuse to see it.
Pretty much. Are we really supposed to be upset that an article got turned down for not being properly sourced?Okay, people seriously need to read the article. The author flat out says...
In other words, her main source won't confirm an actual sexual incident happened, and all her other sources won't go on the record. This isn't the Gawker effect, this is publishers covering their own asses when it comes to questionable journalism. If you want to publish something like this, you have to get on the record confirmation that something happened, not hearsay or off the record witnesses that won't come forward. Unless you want another Rolling Stone incident where a reputable publisher put out a hit piece without looking into it deeper and got rightfully wrecked in court for it and has since had their name in the mud.
Pretty much. Are we really supposed to be upset that an article got turned down for not being properly sourced?