The sex tape was provided to them legally by someone (bubba the love sponge) that had the right to give it away. It was video taped at his home with hogans permission and was bubbas property. Thiels lawyers was perusing multiple suits at the same time as the hogan suit-as part of their strategy of bankrupting gawker. It worked. Gawker felt like they were in the right but resource exhaustion got them in the end.
By the same argument, we can consider that "revenge porn" (wide sharing of an ex's naked pictures/videos online) is totally fine, as the person sharing the pictures had them in their posession legally.
For me, the person to be sued is not the news source (Gawker), but the person who posted it to begin with (Bubba).
By the same token, the problem with revenge porn isn't the ex having the videos, it's them distributing them.
I'm not saying the Gawker/Hogan case represents journalism at its finest. But to me, protecting free speech is so important that it's better to err on the side of protecting it rather than restricting it.
You could say Gawker had no serious news story there, but what happens when it's grey? The government has no business having discussions about what is meritorious or not meritorious news.
One could also argue that the damage to Hogan was about as clear as the meritoriousness of the Gawker story, so in the end it doesn't matter. It's literally the Streisand effect, played out on a larger, more serious scale. None of us would remember anything about this episode if Hogan and Thiel hadn't pursued this.
I also think that the difference between your typical ex and a celebrity is critical. When you are seeking celebrity status professionally, I think the expectation of privacy has to be reduced. I hate to say that, and mean no ill-will toward celebrities, but I think that has to be expected. That doesn't mean anything goes in terms of celebrity privacy, but I think it does mean that when you have a case of freedom of the press versus privacy, if you're dealing with a celebrity, the burden gets shifted further to the celebrity to prove wrongdoing, pretty far. I think it's unfair to pursue money by attracting attention to yourself, and the complain when that happens.
Again, Hogan going after Bubba? No problem with that. Going after Gawker? Huge problem.
I have no affection toward Gawker, but the Hogan-Thiel suit (or more appropriately, the decision) set a dangerous, dangerous precedent, because now the onus is on the speaker to prove their speech is "worthy" of protection.
Exactly. Thiel, Hogan and Gawker are all unpleasant characters. But it's surprising how skewed many of these comments against Gawker. This reflects the heavily anti-free speech sentiment that has taken over the US and the online communities.
I have my suspicions that billionaires are funding the anti-free speech lobbies online
> It worked. Gawker felt like they were in the right but resource exhaustion got them in the end.
It was a billionaire using his money to essentially shutdown a news/media outlet by suing it over and over again. It would be like Bezos suing a small bookstore over and over again to bankrupt them.
