the output of Gawker media has been convicted by a Florida jury to $ 115 million in damages for the publication of a sex tape "Hulk Hogan" and does not take on the order of court. Moreover, it is primarily punitive damages. This case is dangerous -. It is the thin edge of a two-ton concrete repression corner, using the same cheap public that Gawker is accused of using
Gawker was accused of stealing a sex tape and publish. You see gleeful schadenfreude about "stolen", "pilfered" and the like. This is both false and irrelevant: Hulk Hogan explored continue for infringement of copyright, but realized it was a dead end, as he did not shoot the video - one of his friends made , unbeknownst to Hogan. Hogan sued and settled with the friend for this. The material was not stolen or otherwise acquired in bad faith. Although it was , however, the publication would still legal - there are a lot of precedent establishing that the free press can publish what was handed to them legally, even if it was acquired illegally in a earlier stage. See Wikileaks many legal details about it.
Many people, not to mention new releases, focus on the fact that it's a sex tape. That is beside the point. It is a private moment, yes. It does not matter when you post to a well-known public figure, especially not with regard to a subject that the public entity in question was widely discussed by themselves.
Another lot of people express schadenfreude it happens to Gawker Gawker because they consider to be an exit clickbait. It is also completely beside the point
The only thing that matters in this case is that Gawker editor said :.
I will not make a case that the future of the Republic rises or falls on the consumer's ability to watch a video of Hulk Hogan f✕king ex-wife of his friend. But the Constitution does not grant us unambiguously the right to publish true things about public figures.
This is the only thing that matters. This is the only thing that should matter.
To add to this, it is actually a relatively small press protection. Press in other countries are fully protected when they publish things about public figures that are objectively true or they have reason to believe are true, it is objectively true or not . However, if something is objectively true sense, the US press is protected when publishing.
I can not really believe that the United States is going through this huge erosion of press freedom in election year - and adding an election year with many in. Technically, there is not much difference here between this publication and the publication Gawker WikiLeaks emails Hillary Clinton on his private server. It's just that some elements in the US enter a hissy form to anything sexual in distance and let poor control of impulses cloud their judgment far more important issues such as freedom of the press.
other people seem to focus on the damage to Hulk Hogan in this publication. Even if were damage that certainly should not matter: journalism, by its very definition, publishes something that someone else does not want published. Everything else is just public relations and press releases.
heads and clear eyes on the ball. This is the right of the press to publish facts about public figures. Nothing else. That people consider trash these facts, and the output of the edition as trash, is beside the point.
The fact that this is a sex tape, and therefore appeal to basic public opinion rather than principles of crucial importance, is for the government to set a precedent where published inconvenient made a public person may be affected by damage to several million. Does really a precedent that you want to achieve in the next presidency?
Gawker published a statement to the effect that he plans to appeal the decision.
0 Komentar