-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fighting the Gawker effect in the wake of Weinstein
- Thread starter Makonero
- Start date
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.
Gawker wasn't a legitimate news organization. They were a tabloid rag that ran anything that gave clicks, regardless of how trashy or even unethical it was. They have no intrest in Hogan saying the n-word, because the revenue they could get from a sex tape was far higher. That's why I don't feel bad that they've closed down. Because any half respectable news organization wouldn't have done what Gawker did in the first place.
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.
Professor Beef
Banned
Been there : )
Glad we're on the same page.
faceless007
Member
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.
Lonewulfeus
Member
And again, only buzzfeed touched it even at that point.
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.
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.
TheRedSnifit
Member
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."
llien
Member
Isn't there a better suited institution to report sex crimes to? Say,police, prosecutor office?
They are not only obliged to investigate the issue, but, unlike publishers:
1) cannot be sued for it
2) have much better means to investigate
3) can actually punish the offender
Curious Puppy
Banned
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?
This is pretty much exactly my take on it too, only said better. It's really disheartening to see the lack of perspective with the "fuck gawker" crowd, and the way they're getting played is the same way America is getting played by Russia.
Yep.
The absurdity of using Gawker as a hill to die on in a thread where the article author went to great lengths to have the article vetted and cleared for publication (actual journalism) while showing consideration for the sources (Gawker never gave a shit) is something else.
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!
TheRedSnifit
Member
This isn't Gawker making a minor mistake and getting disproportionately punished for it. Gawker had a consistent track record of abusing people and hiding behind "freedom of the press," the lopsided cost of pursuing litigation vs. defending against it, and the fact that they had deeper pockets than those they abused. They were a mob of rich thugs that did reprehensible things against little guys because they knew they wouldn't be able to fight back. The actual discussion we should be having is how somebody who isn't a Peter Thiel or Hulk Hogan is unable to defend themselves against the Gawkers of the world, but that's not the argument I'm seeing.
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?
Lonewulfeus
Member
How would you feel if the trump pee tape was real. Is that in the public interest to publish?
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
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.
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.
Lonewulfeus
Member
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.
It was turned down by major players because the key source refused to go on record. Completely understandable.
TheRedSnifit
Member
I would say it's in the public interest to know that the President is being blackmailed by foreign powers. Trump's fetishes are probably not in the public interest.
It's a pretty useless argument since, even if you somehow try and twist this into a "public interest" argument, Gawker had spent years doing immoral (to say the least), destructive "reporting" on the personal lives of public (as well as not-so-public) figures with no conceivable interest to anybody but Gawker themselves - again, this isn't just one "mistake."
Candescence
Member
Gawker is shitty and what they did was absolutely shitty as fuck. But that doesn't excuse the fact that what happened to them absolutely is creating a chilling effect on free speech. The whole issue is fucked up in all sorts of ways.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
I really hate the idea that a free press is at risk because Gawker lost a hundred million dollar suit for publishing a sex tape under the guise of "hard hitting journalism" and that it's all a slippery slope from here. I don't care that Peter Thiel funded it. What they did to Hogan (and Thiel, outing his sexuality) was shitty and they got what they deserved.
Curious Puppy
Banned
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.
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.
Maybe once or twice it will be. But my inclination is to believe that the "Gawker effect" will have a greater correlation to bad writing than the fear of super rich people. Just going on a limb though.
King Tubby
Member
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.
They were happy to bully others until someone larger than them came along.
TheRedSnifit
Member
oneils
Member
Your definition of a free press seems to be an irresponsible one. Im in canada and cant agree more with the guy you posted. The u.s. has a freer press than either of our countries and yet it had no impact whatsoever on trump getting elected. A free press is not the same thing as a responsible or even effective one. Maybe your effort should be on holding the press accountable rather than wringing your hands about gawker and its chilling effect.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
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.
I mean, people are aware that Gawker can be a sleazy tabloid rag that deserved to die AND a guy with "fuck you" money throwing his weight around to dismantle media organizations can be an issue, right?
You don't have to come in on every event with a "GOOD!" or "BAD!" stamp. You can weigh the details out, but having a nuanced view of the situation won't hurt you.
You don't have to come in on every event with a "GOOD!" or "BAD!" stamp. You can weigh the details out, but having a nuanced view of the situation won't hurt you.
Pyroclastic
Banned
It doesn't seem hard to me to be able to hold the views at the same time that Peter thiel is awful a d has set a very dangerous precedent but also that Gawker was fucking trash and not missed at all by me.
Lol what jph wrote pretty much
Lol what jph wrote pretty much
KonradLaw
Member
I'm sure the public outrage about people posting all those celebrity nudes from fappening also had a chilling effect on many brave journalists.
BUNTING1243
Banned
Im 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
Yo, if Wells Fargo was out of business for the shit they've pulled lately maybe I'd agree that Gawker "got what they deserved" but considering Gawker got the corporate death penalty because an extremely rich person held a grudge for a decade and Wells Fargo is still open for business despite fairly massive and widespread fraud...
Gawker deserved to feel some heat and suffer some consequences for the worst of what they did. They did not deserve to be fully put out of business for it.
The tide is turning in these bubbles
LordRaptor
Member
So topic has literally nothing to with Gawker, people just want to relitigate how wrong what happened to Gawker was, huh?
Free press means a press not fettered by governmental censorship, not a press devoid of any responsibility for its actions.
If the owner of that pizza restaurant thats supposedly the centre of that supposed clinton sex ring wanted to sue the "free press" that turned his life into a shitstorm, yeah, I'm fine with that.
If the family of victims of Sandy Hook want to sue the "free press" alleging false flag operations, and who get harassed as secret government stooges by the people who believe that shit, yeah, I'm fine with that too.
e:
I mean, it blows my fucking mind that we have supposed "free press" outright acting as agents of disinformation right now not working to any pretense of journalistic standards or integrity and people are still holding up the fourth estate as some unimpeachable ideal that must never be fettered
Free press means a press not fettered by governmental censorship, not a press devoid of any responsibility for its actions.
If the owner of that pizza restaurant thats supposedly the centre of that supposed clinton sex ring wanted to sue the "free press" that turned his life into a shitstorm, yeah, I'm fine with that.
If the family of victims of Sandy Hook want to sue the "free press" alleging false flag operations, and who get harassed as secret government stooges by the people who believe that shit, yeah, I'm fine with that too.
e:
I mean, it blows my fucking mind that we have supposed "free press" outright acting as agents of disinformation right now not working to any pretense of journalistic standards or integrity and people are still holding up the fourth estate as some unimpeachable ideal that must never be fettered
KonradLaw
Member
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"
Both articles cited in the thread ended up having the stories published. We also just saw a display of real journalism take down one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. The slope doesn't really seem that slippery, to be honest. Probably because Gawker would still be with us today if they practiced actual journalism.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
My only gripe is calling this the "Gawker effect", when people trying to sue for libel/slander/defamation in an attempt to silence has been a thing for decades. Also the optics for both cases are completely different; Gawker being a case about posting sex videos without consent (and they have had a horrible track record of this, especially a video of a woman getting raped being considered newsworthy despite requests to take it down), versus claims of sexual assault from a well known producer in Hollywood. One involves lack of consent vs. The other involving potentially serious allegations if their sources check out, otherwise they face a lawsuit for trying to defame. Anyone who tries to handwave away the differences is being intentionally obtuse bc you can't simply say "oh see??? Gawker dying fucked everything up!!" You also have to realize that Gawkers standards were nowhere near reputable journalists/companies, had they practiced ethical journalism instead of essentially being a defiant tabloid rag, we would have seen a much different Gawker.
Additionally like someone said ITT, it's possible to find something both good and bad in a case like Gawker's. Personally, I find it disgusting that it took a billionaire to ensure that Gawker faced consequences, while at the same time realizing that money is essentially unlimited power in the legal system (even so cases like Mother Jones goes to show that fighting against billionaires is not a death sentence because cases are always different from each other).
Additionally like someone said ITT, it's possible to find something both good and bad in a case like Gawker's. Personally, I find it disgusting that it took a billionaire to ensure that Gawker faced consequences, while at the same time realizing that money is essentially unlimited power in the legal system (even so cases like Mother Jones goes to show that fighting against billionaires is not a death sentence because cases are always different from each other).
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
The exchange in question.
He's obviously joking with the four year old answer guys.
oneils
Member
He probably shouldnt have done it in an open court.
MistakenMobius
Member
Joking under oath?
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
I didn't say it wasn't silly, just that it wasn't disgusting or scandalous
TheRedSnifit
Member
Child porn is funny guys, haw haw. Trump was also joking about how Pence wants to lynch gays, so it's okay.
The problem is that Daulerio's intent was at the heart of Gawker's argument, which was that they considered Hogan's tape to be important news which overrode the need for respecting privacy laws. The prosecution was arguing that they just didn't give a fuck about Hogan's privacy and their only motivation was purely to get hits and make money. Free speech is qualified; they still need to prove that it applies here.
So the lawyer finds an instance where this guy is directly asked about what he considers important news and he responds with a stupid joke. The fact that he looks like an offensive asshole who thinks child porn is good material is just a bonus. The real damning part is that it made him look like he didn't really take what was and wasn't in the "public interest" as seriously as his defense claimed.
Wrong on both counts. They did take down the tape, they didnt get in trouble for keeping the post up.
Your insistence on framing some kind of GAF hive mind is weird.
He didnt. It was a deposition. It was a dumb line of questioning. Gawker never posted any kind of child sex tape and they didnt have any kind of actual policy in place about it being ok. Dude got impatient and fell for a cheap trick.
In order...
1. Say what you mean. Don't be shy. If you'd get banned for what you want to say, then don't drop hints in lieu of saying it.
2. Gawker had a value of 300 million. Rich versus the richer.
3. Childish meme speak highlights your poor argument here.
4. You need evidence.
Pretty much. Are we really supposed to be upset that an article got turned down for not being properly sourced?
Dude Abides
Banned
Yeah nobody ever publishes articles based on anonymous sources. If you do it's fake news.
meltingparappa
Member
It's vile that in the wake of a small movement surrounding abuses of sexual assault, the article chooses to deify an news outlet that put up a woman's video of potential rape and scolded her when she requested it be taken down.
Similar threads
- Poll