Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million Dollars in Gawker Lawsuit

[TechNoFear]

It has not been 'long established' the tape was private, this case was to decided that exact issue.

Are matters relating to Bill Cosby's sex life also private?

Or are they newsworthy and so protected under the 1st amendment?

If they decided to broadcast a sex tape of Bill Cosby raping an unconscious woman, yeah, same response. Albeit the damaged party receiving the money would be his Victim.

You miss the point; should Bill Cosby be allowed to stop publication of a sex tape, possibly showing him raping someone, because it is private and not newsworthy?

Why is it that Hogan's racism and dishonesty are not newsworthy? [remembering that Gawker only published 101 seconds of the 30 minute tape]

 

[TechNoFear]

Yes, anybody involved should. If it exists, they can talk about it existing, but the only people who should be showing that tape are lawyers to a Jury.

Clearly a video of this nature would be newsworthy.

Therefore you view the right to privacy as more important than the public's right to know.

IMO this is open for abuse, as people can then use privacy to prevent factual newsworthy items being published.

I do not personally find anything to do with Hogan to be newsworthy, apart from his attempt to hide factual material that he thinks damages his reputation.

 

[Gyrick]

tl;dr version: Courts give leeway to news organizations under the 1st amendment and the right to privacy. The more private a mater, and the less directly relevant to politics, the less newsworthy."

So you and your lawyer think that it is not in any way newsworthy that a man who made millions from his reputation as an 'American Hero' is a racist who cheats on his wife?

I personally find adultery abhorrent and racism to be vile, but at it's core, that's not what the situation is about, not rhetorically anyway. There are laws in place to what people can do in public, but in the private sphere, people are allowed to think, say, and do what they please (as long as it doesn't break the law). While the situation itself isn't clear (whether it was actually adultery or some sort of open relationship thing), what happened on the tape, even if it was just a section of it, was private. I hate the idea of someone cheating, whether on or with someone, and I abhor bigotry with every fiber of my being, but I'm also not going to tell people how they should think or what they should say when they are "behind closed doors." If Hulk Hogan had tweeted out his remarks, yelled them to an someone in an audience, or even left a message in someone's voicemail, I would be taking a very different stance.

If I did, that would make me either the "morality police" or (even worse) "thought police." I think encouraging people to spy on others to monitor what they are doing and thinking, as long as everything is legal, sets a worse precedent, sort of like a "big brother" state. The sort of power where one has complete control over what people are allowed to do and think sounds like brainwashing [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/brainwashing?s=t], or, "a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, especially through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques," (dictionary.com).

I can't think of anything more psychologically stressful than having to be on guard, even in your own home, about what you say or think or else be arrested or publicly humiliated.

 

[TechNoFear]

Take for another example, if someone found a video of Michael Jackson having sex with a 6 year old child. Are you saying that only being able to report on the existence of the video doesn't count as being able to publish a newsworthy item, that anything less than letting them play a full tape of the child being raped is an unreasonable restriction of the free press and denies the public the necessary information?

No, what gave you that idea?

Are you saying that a news site should not even publish an image from the video, an image that clearly identified it was Jackson, but ensured the child's identity was protected?

The point is that Jackson (or his estate) should not be allowed to prevent the publication on privacy grounds.