Native Advertising Is Advertising People Want

Gawker Defies Judge, Refuses To Take Down Post About Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Despite Court Order

from the first-amendment,-brother dept

Fri, Apr 26th 2013 5:29pm — Mike Masnick

Gawker has been in a legal fight with Hulk Hogan, who was upset that they posted a brief clip (about 1 minute out of 30 minutes) of a sex tape involving Hogan and Heather Clem, the wife of one of Hogan's friends. Hogan claims that he didn't know he was being filmed at the time. His initial lawsuit, for $100 million, had a huge number of questionable claims and a federal court ruled against Hogan pretty quickly, pointing out that Gawker was protected by the First Amendment. Hogan then tried strategy two, which was suing in state court in Florida under a particular state law. Somewhat amazingly, the judge in that case has now granting an injunction against Gawker's post, but made it so incredibly broad that it effectively demanded not just the takedown of the video, but the entire post, written by A.J. Daulerio (which was about the whole concept of celebrity sex tapes, rather than just about the Hulk Hogan video) and all of the comments on that post.

It's unfortunate when state courts seem to go out on a limb like this, and Gawker has decided that the ruling is so ridiculous that it's refusing to take down the post, though it did agree to take down the video clip (again, which was just a very small portion, which is why the federal judge had argued it was protected by fair use). In the Florida case, Hogan is claiming that the publication of the video was an invasion of privacy. Even if that's true -- and it seems like a stretch -- to the go even further and order the entire commentary be taken down as well is extreme and clearly beyond the First Amendment. Amazingly, the judge also determined that a preliminary injunction was appropriate without even looking at the video in question!

We publish all manner of stories here. Some are serious, some are frivolous, some are dumb. I am not going to make a case that the future of the Republic rises or falls on the ability of the general public to watch a video of Hulk Hogan fucking his friend's ex-wife. But the Constitution does unambiguously accord us the right to publish true things about public figures. And Campbell's order requiring us to take down not only a very brief, highly edited video excerpt from a 30-minute Hulk Hogan fucking session but also a lengthy written account from someone who had watched the entirety of that fucking session, is risible and contemptuous of centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence.

In the Gawker post, they demonstrate segments from the transcript where it appears the judge is quite unfamiliar with the basic concepts of freedom of speech, and the fact that it extends beyond what someone is verbally saying out loud. For example, she expresses confusion over what "free speech" issue there even is and asks Gawker's lawyer if it's the "speech" between Hogan and the woman he's having sex with, and then being confused when the lawyer points out he's talking about the written report about it.

The injunction really does seem to go against pretty much all First Amendment case law. Furthermore, on the question of comments from others, the ruling seems to completely ignore Section 230 of the CDA as well, which clearly says Gawker is not liable for those comments. While the subject matter here may be a bit crazy, the ruling is serious... and seriously problematic for those who believe in free speech.

Bollea v Clem at Al Hearing Before Judge (PDF)Bollea v Clem at Al Hearing Before Judge (Text)

Order Granting Temporary Injunction (PDF)Order Granting Temporary Injunction (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: hulk hogan
Companies: gawker

68 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!

promoting a bit of vulgarity that cheapens all free
speech

The content of their speech here is not worth fighting over.

�First they came for the pornography��

People fight for the First Amendment right to express ideas that we find offensive or vulgar specifically so that the government can�t later expand the supression of that right into other areas.

I remind you that the ACLU sued the state of Illinois on behalf of a group of Neo-Nazis for this exact reason � and won.

Just because speech is in principle "free" doesn't mean that it's in unlimited supply. You cannot spend "free speech" on trivial and vulgar subjects and still have it!

I can say whatever fucking vulgar things I want and you can�t legally do jack fucking shit about it because my fucking right to offend you doesn�t give you the right to not feel fucking offended at my speech.

Gawker didn�t fucking defame Hogan, and it didn�t fucking do or say anything illegal by posting that rundown of his sex tape or the commentary on sex tapes in general. Vulgarity doesn't serve as a barrier to free speech, and fucking shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

I bet a jury hands Gawker a big loss simply because they don't want to see it

And then Gawker gets to appeal the verdict, win said appeal specifically on constitutional grounds, and shove it in that jury�s face.

Clearly Gawker likes to wallow in this stuff, and your mother will take an instant dislike, won't get to the Constitutional questions.

At which point your mother will decide a case based on emotion instead of facts.

I can and DO judge what's worthwhile.

You can judge whether you consider certain expressions or forms of speech worth your while, but when it comes to the Constitutional protections of the First Amendment, I believe nine souls who sit on a very important bench in a very important city have a far greater right than you to judge what we should consider �worth� protecting.

If the battle lines for free speech are now down to defending publishing this, civilization is about over.

The ACLU fought for Neo-Nazis specifically because it believed even offensive speech deserved Constitutional protections, and the courts agreed.

The videogame industry fought against the state of California for the right to publish violent videogames without having that right impugned by an unconstitutional fine.

Larry Flynt won a Supreme Court decision that expanded the protections afforded to parodies � for publishing an ad in Hustler that said Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.

We defend the offensive, the vile, the vulgar, and the disturbing because we must.

—S. T. Stone

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 5:51pm

Publicity stunt
I don't believe any of this. Just another Gawker publicity stunt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 26 Apr 2013 @ 5:58pm

In this court case, Gawker will play the role of Steve Austin, and the judge will play the role of Vince McMahon.

I can�t wait to see the legal equivalent of Austin giving Vince a beer bath.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nigel (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 5:59pm

Or Maybe...
It's just "Hulkamania Running Wild"

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

Nigel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:00pm

Re: Publicity stunt
I don�t think Gawker would defraud the court by suing itself and dragging Hulk Hogan�s name into said fradulent lawsuit just to set itself up as a proponent of the First Amendment.

And I don�t have a high opinion of Gawker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:08pm

Maybe the Hulkster threw a bone her way eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:10pm

Re: Re: Publicity stunt
just to set itself up as a proponent of the First Amendment.

�Streisand Effect� meets professional wrestling.

Cheap way to get eyeballs. Their ad revenues must be dropping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Publicity stunt
Gawker doesn�t have nearly the same amount of promotional acumen as Vince McMahon. (I don�t think they have balls the size of grapefruits, either.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:21pm

Disobeying the injunction, even if unconstitutional, is still contempt of court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rasz, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:22pm

Re: Publicity stunt
You dont believe what? Clip is on Youtube (first link in google lol)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:29pm

Re:
And given that contempt of court in this case means defying a blatantly unconstitutional court order, I doubt Gawker gives a shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:42pm

Re: Re:
The bench warrants might change their attitudes. There's a way to challenge a court's order without getting arrested, and this is not it. Bragging about disobeying the court order is really, really dumb. I'm not surprised Mike is applauding it. Moreover, I don't see how the order is "blatantly unconstitutional." What about Hogan's rights? The First Amendment doesn't necessarily trump his rights of privacy and publicity. If the video violates his rights, then the written narrative describing what's on the video might as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:45pm

Re: Re: Re:
"No one is disputing that they have a right to write a legitimate news story."

"And then talking about he had an extramarital affair. He was in a bedroom. It was not his bedroom. It was not his wife, et cetera. A tape was made allegedly. Someone is trying to shop that tape. You can say all that in words."

This is from the transcript, from the side that wanted the injunction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:47pm

Re:
Sometimes you do what is right, regardless of the consequences.

Actually, you should always be doing that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
The description of the video and the commentary on sex tapes in general that makes up the bulk of the original post does not constitute either defamation or an invasion of privacy.

Even if Gawker came into possession of the sex tape via unlawful means, its description of the video (and the aformentioned general commentary) does not constitute an unlawful act. The theft of the Pentagon Papers constituted an unlawful act; reporters talking about the information contained within the Pentagon Papers does not. Any attempt by a court to prevent such discussions qualifies as a blatant end run around the First Amendment.

Nothing Gawker did before defying this court order rises to the level of an illegal act, and I would argue that even defying this blatantly unconstitutional court order doesn't count because of the unconstitutionality of the order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you read the article they're not taking down? http://gawker.com/5948770/even-for-a-minute-watching-hulk-hogan-have-sex-in-a-canopy-bed-is-not-safe -for-work-but-watch-it-anyway It's just a play by play of the tape. Then read paragraph 2 of the TRO that says no written narrative describing what's on the tape--that's what the article is. They have the right to write a legitimate news story, sure. But the play by play of a tape that violates Hogan's rights is different since, it seems to me anyway, it also implicates his rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So we can write about facts, but we can't write about them in a 'play-by-play' manner or we violate someone's right to privacy?

How does that even come close to sounding as if it doesn't run counter to the protections of the First Amendment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing Gawker did before defying this court order rises to the level of an illegal act, and I would argue that even defying this blatantly unconstitutional court order doesn't count because of the unconstitutionality of the order.

As I said, it's still contempt even if the order violates their First Amendment rights. They MUST obey it or be in contempt. Even if they later challenge the constitutionality of the order and WIN, they will still be guilty of contempt. The only defense would be that the court didn't have jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And again, I don�t think Gawker gives a shit because it has chosen to defy a court order that seeks to chill their First Amendment right to talk about public figures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Listen, we all get that you think the First Amendment is the worst thing ever to be written down, but even you have to admit that some nebulous "publicity rights" thing that only some states have defined (not even similarly) doesn't trump the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can I surreptitiously film you having sex and then post it on the Internet, or would care about your privacy rights at that point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you're wrong about them not trumping the First Amendment. They can and do, or else there wouldn't be any if those types of rights. Think about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn't particularly care about privacy rights, no. There's a lot of sex tapes out on the internet, so one of me wouldn't change much. Suing you would bring far more scrutiny than just letting you do whatever the hell you wanted with it.

Would I be pissed off at you? Sure. Pissed off enough to punch you in the face if I ever saw you? Probably. Pissed off enough to sue? Nope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get that they are willing to be arrested, but your argument that the order doesn't "count" is wrong. We don't get to decide for ourselves which court orders count. If the court has jurisdiction, it counts whether we agree with it or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:18pm

Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
Disobeying an injunction in order to uphold the right to publish sex tape or comment about it is not a winning case, it's just insane fixation on promoting a bit of vulgarity that cheapens all free speech and especially in the political realm.

Just because speech is in principle "free" doesn't mean that it's in unlimited supply. You cannot spend "free speech" on trivial and vulgar subjects and still have it! CHOOSE your battles.

This is a mix of vulgar and stupid that crosses the "icky" line, and that's all most people will see. I bet a jury hands Gawker a big loss simply because they don't want to see it, and don't want some nasty little kids promoting vulgarity by trumpeting what they should clearly have the common decency to avoid. Remember, kids, your mother is the type who serves on juries. Clearly Gawker likes to wallow in this stuff, and your mother will take an instant dislike, won't get to the Constitutional questions.

Gawker should have just given in reluctantly. The content of their speech here is not worth fighting over.

And it's possible that the anarchists at Gawker intend to take another bite out of worthwhile free speech. -- And YES, I can and DO judge what's worthwhile. So do all the little weenies here who tell me to shut up 'cause I'm not saying anything worthwhile! This is not worth anyone's time. If the battle lines for free speech are now down to defending publishing this, civilization is about over.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Techdirt fanboys are totally committed to free speech -- which to them means links to FREE infringing content!
15:17:15[q-290-6]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you would rather batter someone than enforce your rights in court? Classy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Monkey (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).
�The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.�

Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622
�Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.�

Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
�The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.�

That's just 3 I found from a very quick scan...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
radarmonkey (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:24pm

Florida Entertainment
Ah, Florida! A never-ending source of ridicule-inducing entertainment!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Monkey (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:26pm

Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
The content of their speech here is not worth fighting over.

It is not the content, but the fundamental First Amendment right.

This is a mix of vulgar and stupid that crosses the "icky" line

I most certainly agree with you on that point, but, alas, that point is secondary to the fundamental issue here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:35pm

Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
The content of their speech here is not worth fighting over.

It is not the content, but the fundamental First Amendment right.

I'm making the practical case that fundamentals won't matter to a jury.

People every day decide whether to fight or not on sheerly practical grounds: here, Gawker has chosen to fight for vulgarity on lofty grounds. In my opinion, that won't work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:39pm

Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
promoting a bit of vulgarity that cheapens all free
speech

The content of their speech here is not worth fighting over.

�First they came for the pornography��

People fight for the First Amendment right to express ideas that we find offensive or vulgar specifically so that the government can�t later expand the supression of that right into other areas.

I remind you that the ACLU sued the state of Illinois on behalf of a group of Neo-Nazis for this exact reason � and won.

Just because speech is in principle "free" doesn't mean that it's in unlimited supply. You cannot spend "free speech" on trivial and vulgar subjects and still have it!

I can say whatever fucking vulgar things I want and you can�t legally do jack fucking shit about it because my fucking right to offend you doesn�t give you the right to not feel fucking offended at my speech.

Gawker didn�t fucking defame Hogan, and it didn�t fucking do or say anything illegal by posting that rundown of his sex tape or the commentary on sex tapes in general. Vulgarity doesn't serve as a barrier to free speech, and fucking shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

I bet a jury hands Gawker a big loss simply because they don't want to see it

And then Gawker gets to appeal the verdict, win said appeal specifically on constitutional grounds, and shove it in that jury�s face.

Clearly Gawker likes to wallow in this stuff, and your mother will take an instant dislike, won't get to the Constitutional questions.

At which point your mother will decide a case based on emotion instead of facts.

I can and DO judge what's worthwhile.

You can judge whether you consider certain expressions or forms of speech worth your while, but when it comes to the Constitutional protections of the First Amendment, I believe nine souls who sit on a very important bench in a very important city have a far greater right than you to judge what we should consider �worth� protecting.

If the battle lines for free speech are now down to defending publishing this, civilization is about over.

The ACLU fought for Neo-Nazis specifically because it believed even offensive speech deserved Constitutional protections, and the courts agreed.

The videogame industry fought against the state of California for the right to publish violent videogames without having that right impugned by an unconstitutional fine.

Larry Flynt won a Supreme Court decision that expanded the protections afforded to parodies � for publishing an ad in Hustler that said Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.

We defend the offensive, the vile, the vulgar, and the disturbing because we must.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
"What about Hogan's rights? The First Amendment doesn't necessarily trump his rights of privacy and publicity. If the video violates his rights, then the written narrative describing what's on the video might as well."

Actually, thats pretty much EXACTLY what the First Amendment does. His right of privacy does NOT extend to supressing speech ABOUT him just because he doesn't like it. The Constitution also grants him NOTHING on the subject of publicity rights. Nada. Zip. Zero. You are completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 26 Apr 2013 @ 8:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
Gawker has chosen to fight for vulgarity on lofty grounds. In my opinion, that won't work.

Yeah, because nobody ever successfully defended vulgar or offensive speech in court. Nope. Not ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 8:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The proper recourse is to sue the party that took the video. Once it's out, it's out. Cats and bags and such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

horse with no name, 26 Apr 2013 @ 8:54pm

Goodbye Gawker
It's been nice having you online. Enjoy your retirement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew Cline (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 8:59pm

Up until just now, my eyes kept sliding over the "Hogan" after "Hulk", and I thought the whole thing had to do with the Incredible Hulk. And now I'm kinda disappointed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AzureSky (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 9:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if you know anything about Terry Gene Bollea you would know hes a giant egotist, I mean of epic scope and scale, watch the reality tv show his family did, watch videos of him talking about this situation.

he acts as if the world is against him and hes some kind of picked on 12yo girl.....

I was a huge fan when I was a kid, till I met the man behind the scenes, he lost my respect then....the mans ego is even more out of control then shatners was....and thats bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 10:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
A bench warrant against whom? Gawker is a company (ie: a legal fiction) and not a natural person in the criminal sense of the word.

A bench warrant would have to be against EVERY person in Gawker who had any knowledge (and authority) to both ignore and delete the offending article. Otherwise the Judge will be sanctioned himself.

Though ONLY in the USA can a Federal court give one order then a state based court give a totally different order due to the state based judge playing the 'butthurt' card. Especially when both claims all are based under Federal Constitutional claims or Federal Statutes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 10:29pm

Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
We defend the offensive, the vile, the vulgar, and the disturbing because we must.

This a thousand times this...

The interesting thing is that OOTB is itself protected by this otherwise I finding him/it vulgar, vile, disturbing and offensive to my intelligent would be able to shut him up with legal shenanigans too.. Damnation!!! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Apr 2013 @ 12:08am

I can't for the life of me understand why some people have contempt for Judges making rulings on things they obviously don't understand...
o_O
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse (profile), 27 Apr 2013 @ 1:15am

"which was just a very small portion, which is why the federal judge had argued it was protected by fair use"

Fair use implies Hulk Hogan made a copyright claim, but how can that be if he didn't know he was being filmed. He most definitely can't be the copyright owner then? Unless filmer sold rights to him, in which case does that mean Hulk published it knowingly to web?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2013 @ 5:15am

yet another example of judges hearing and then ruling on cases that they have no suitable knowledge of. why do these illiterate judges (and i mean it from the Constitution and Internet side of things) even get involved? they know they are not capable of doing the right thing but are so concerned about losing the 'gravy train' of a job, the screw peoples lives and rights in the process. for goodness sake, get up to date or butt out!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2013 @ 7:50am

Re: Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
If fundamentals don't matter then what the hell have you been arguing over morality?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2013 @ 8:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right, it doesn't suppress speech about him because he doesn't like it. But it can suppress speech that defames him, or that paints him in a false light, or that appropriates his likeness for commercial purposes, or that intrudes upon his seclusion, or that reveals private facts that are not newsworthy, etc. The First Amendment is not absolute--it's qualified by countervailing interests and rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2013 @ 8:38am

For those interested... A case that's relatively on point and discusses the difference between right of privacy and right of publicity--both of which might be implicated here with Hogan--is Ali v. Playgirl: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=ali+v.+playgirl&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=12433019 22700135667&scilh=0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 27 Apr 2013 @ 8:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it can suppress speech that defames him, or that paints him in a false light

Prove that Gawker lied about anything presented as a statement of fact in the original column.

that reveals private facts that are not newsworthy

How can we determine if certain facts do not count as �newsworthy� if we cannot openly discuss those facts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 27 Apr 2013 @ 9:02am

Seriously, does anyone want to see Hulk Hogan having sex?!
Now, if there's ever a sex vid of Brooke, THAT I would want to see!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shon Gale (profile), 27 Apr 2013 @ 9:54am

Good ol' Hulk trying to make money. He has no skills to earn it. So he'll sue you for it. Great Image he is protecting!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 27 Apr 2013 @ 10:32am

Re: Publicity stunt
Yes, and that brilliantly glowing ball of nuclear fire in the sky every day is just a publicity stunt by the nuclear power lobby.

The fact that reality is real means it doesn't have to make sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2013 @ 1:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Prove that Gawker lied about anything presented as a statement of fact in the original column.

You missed my point. I was giving examples of things that can trump the First Amendment: defamation, right of privacy, and right of publicity. I wasn't saying all of those necessarily apply here. I was refuting your claim that the First Amendment trumps all. It doesn't. Not even close. First Amendment rights are extensive and powerful, but they are also qualified and limited by countervailing rights.

How can we determine if certain facts do not count as �newsworthy� if we cannot openly discuss those facts?

The intimate details of a sexual act he engaged in are not newsworthy. They are private facts that would be protected by his right of privacy--even if he's a celebrity. Celebrities have less privacy protection than non-celebrities, but they still have a right of privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 27 Apr 2013 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe the phrase "right of publicity" is found in the constitution. I also don't see where any exceptions are granted in the text of the first amendment. For example, when the supreme court decided that "obscenity" has no first amendment protection. Can anybody point out where the first amendment says "except for obscenity"? No. It's not there. Neither are any other exceptions that courts pull out of their butts. But that's what courts love to do: restrict our freedom by making up exceptions that are found nowhere in the constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 27 Apr 2013 @ 4:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was refuting your claim that the First Amendment trumps all.

Now that could count as defamation: you stated that I claimed the First Amendment �trumps all� when I said no such thing and have never said any such thing.

I recognize the limitations of the First Amendment and consider the generally accepted limits of defamation, incitements of violence, and �fighting words� as reasonable.

The �privacy right� and �publicity right� limits you mention don�t strike me as reasonable. How can a news organization know beforehand if information it receives will absolutely infringe on either (or both) of those rights � and even if the info does infringe, how can you expect the organization to keep a lid on it forever if said organization finds it newsworthy?

Any law that would codify those rights would have to receive the most narrowed and specific wording possible to prevent any misuse by a celebrity looking to, say, silence a critic or pull down information said celebrity finds embarassing before it becomes widespread. Unless an exception to the First Amendment makes as much sense as the three exceptions I listed above, we must tread carefully into any situation where we could chill the right to freely speak our minds.

And that brings me to your next point�

The intimate details of a sexual act he engaged in are not newsworthy.

You can judge the worth of such things in relation to how you see the world, but you don�t stand as the lone judge of �worthwhile� in the world. Plenty of people may think of the details of a celebrity�s sex life as �newsworthy�. (I agree with you in that I don�t find it newsworthy in any way.)

Gawker, TMZ, and other such gossip rags report on such things because they know this sort of �news� will catch people�s attention. As long as people pay attention to gossip-level �news�, it will remain �newsworthy�.

Oh, and don�t assume that information you don�t find �newsworthy� doesn�t deserve protections under the First Amendment. I don�t consider the answer to �Where do I live?� (North Carolina for the record) as �newsworthy�, but that doesn�t mean I have the right to shut you up if you print it on the front page of a newspaper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2013 @ 4:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's an easy one. Some (though very few) judges have taken an absolutist approach to the First Amendment--Justice Black, most famously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black#First_Amendment But to answer your textual question, the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ." The wiggle room is found in the "abridging the freedom of speech" part. The reasoning is that recognizing a right of publicity does not abridge the freedom of speech. Neither does copyright for that matter. I realize that you likely disagree, but that's where the wiggle room is. The debate is over what it means to abridge the freedom of speech. You might think that any restriction whatsoever on speech is an abridgement, but that view has always been the minority view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 27 Apr 2013 @ 4:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The restrictions placed on our freedom of expression exist because we would otherwise regularly infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others.

We hold defamation as illegal because of the harm lies (lies and slander!) can do to a person�s reputation. That harm can further damage a person�s life by making it impossible for said person to, say, get a job or go out in public.

We hold incitements to violence and �fighting words� as illegal because of the potential for actual physical harm to come to the person(s) on the receiving end of such speech.

We make these exceptions so that we can hold people accountable for their actions in a court of law instead of leaving them to face either no consequences or the justice of a mob.

The First Amendment, much the same as the rest of the Constitution, must adapt with the changing world while still holding true to its underlying principles. That means we must create laws that make certain kinds of provably harmful speech illegal while still protecting speech that cannot provably create harm in all possible instances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2013 @ 5:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
In addition, the speech, of the video, is not Hogan's, it's the videographers. Also, he may not like the video, but unless altered, it's fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ldne, 27 Apr 2013 @ 5:19pm

Re: contempt
Yes it is contempt of court, and any court that would issue such a judgment deserves nothing less than the contempt of every American.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ldne, 27 Apr 2013 @ 5:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The intimate details of a sexual act he engaged in are not newsworthy.

Are you nuts? He's a celebrity caught on camera schtupping the wife of a close friend, of course that's newsworthy

As a public figure, anything that reflects on his image or character is automatically newsworthy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2013 @ 5:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no "trumping" the constitution. Read about it, learn about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2013 @ 5:14am

Re:
Because their ignorance of the law directly harms others through setting bad precendents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 28 Apr 2013 @ 5:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the US, libel and slander are civil rather than criminal, presumably because of the first amendment. A person can be sued for them, but not prosecuted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2013 @ 6:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the US, libel and slander are civil rather than criminal, presumably because of the first amendment. A person can be sued for them, but not prosecuted.

Well, that's easily disproved. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=369+F.Supp.2d+1291&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=94880 57975772539813&scilh=0

(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.

(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.

K.S.A.21-4001.

The holding: Based upon the reasoning above, the court finds that the criminal defamation ordinance is neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad, and therefore, the court finds that the criminal defamation ordinance is not facially unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2013 @ 8:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no "trumping" the constitution. Read about it, learn about it.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court has said that state rights of publicity are to be balanced against First Amendment interests: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=zacchini+v.+scripps+howard&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&ca se=16238771870259020023&scilh=0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 28 Apr 2013 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First I've heard of that. But with all the crazy laws the US has, I wouldn't doubt it. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to take this chicken off my head so I can cross the Minnesota state line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 28 Apr 2013 @ 11:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...or tending to degrade or vilify the memory of one who is dead...". So remember, say only good things about Hitler, Nero, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, John W. Gacy, George Jones, etc., or you'll be breaking the law. We wouldn't want that now would we?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 29 Apr 2013 @ 4:11am

Re: Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
Amen, brother, amen. He is so absurdly stupid that he bites the hand that protects him. Quite a few of us would love to see him biting the dust for the idiocies, accusations the spews out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 29 Apr 2013 @ 4:13am

Re: Re: Ankle-biters at Gawker have gotten outside the fence!
I remind you that the ACLU sued the state of Illinois on behalf of a group of Neo-Nazis for this exact reason � and won.

That takes guts to be done. I'd feel very uncomfortable defending such speech. But that's the nature of free speech. It allows everything. Including our trolls bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TaCktiX, 29 Apr 2013 @ 7:34am

Re:
Fair use is an important part because the original video IS copyrighted in some capacity. Hulk Hogan may not be the holder of the copyright, but without fair use the video is easily taken down by either a DMCA filing or a court order about the illegality of posting the video. Fair use is necessary to get to the First Amendment aspects of the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2013 @ 8:33am

Re: Re:
New to sarcasm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ockham's Stubble (profile), 29 Apr 2013 @ 8:41am

Re: Privacy
I would care about my privacy rights, sure. I'd be looking for the Prosecutor's office to charge you with the appropriate criminal charges, and/or go after you civilly. If you sold/leaked it to others and they reported on it, I'd be furious at that too. (Not sure my performances would be newsworthy, though...) In any case, I'd use that public dissemination at YOUR trial, not theirs, when it came to damages. Free speech is not stalking. The problem (if there is one - in this case, it's apparently unsettled fact) is the initial taping, not the reportage after that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]