@ivy

Not a tiger…I is a momma bear protecting my cub though sometimes it comes across as a pitbull biting into a tasty bone 😉

Not saying anyone who supports Apple doesn’t care about privacy…saying some prefer facilitating uncontrolled arbitrary court of public opinion persecutions while thwarting government prosecution with due process protections. I think both are pernicious threats to our right to privacy.

@lurkingreader
This statement that you made:
Many of the groups supporting Apple as a guard against government intrusion into our private lives aren’t trying to protect our privacy at all…

This is not true at all. Not sure why you think that. It’s not a debate with me, we can draw lines that’s fine. But to you say that anyone who supports Apple is somehow saying that “they don’t really care about privacy” unless you meant to say something else.

I had realized that my previous post was poorly worded, but TBH I really don’t want to get into it with you about it right now, so I’m not going to stress about it.

@lurkingreader Chill out tiger. I’ll get back to you once I read the deposition thoroughly

I can say this, if I had gotten hold of that sex tape, my first call would have been to a really good attorney someone I trust and someone good, like JD Obenberger or Marc Randazza.

In the end though had they told me that I would be safe running it the big question is do I run it? In this case my answer would have been no, and some of you probably know that I was faced with a very similar situation last year.

For me there would have to be a compelling reason to run it, say John Doe KNEW that he had HIV and this tape proved that he was having unprotected sex with girls who he did not tell that he had HIV then I have a compelling reason why privacy doesnt trump first amendment.

Put another way, when a performer gets HIV or HEP C or another STD I am always faced with a dilemma, that being does his/her right to privacy trump the right of fellow performers to know that they were exposed. I don’t think it does and that is why I contact the performer and say look come forward, do the right thing by your fellow performers and I will back you up, if you choose NOT to come forward I will out you, take a day and think about it if you need to but people have a right to know if their health has been compromised.

It is a situation that I absolutely HATE to be in, but in the end I have to do what I think is right.

Back to Hogan and Gawker, I am just not sure what the justification is on Gawkers part, I know that tomorrow Gawker founder Nick Denton will be telling his side and I am interested to hear it.

I just intended this to be a comment but it occurs to me that maybe it should be a post. As always if anyone wants to present an alternative view I am more than happy to run it, just email it to me or post it here and let me know you are OK with my running it front page and crediting you.

Thanks Y’all you really are the best and I am lucky as hell to be in such esteemed company…Y’all are smart and articulate and I appreciate the opportunity I have to learn from ya!

@ivy

The right to free speech is not a license to speak freely without consequences. What the fuck does the right to privacy matter as a guard against government Intrusion into private lives if media (editors) can disregard journalism ethics without penalty?

If they’ll absolutely disregard a celebrity’s privacy for page view income then why wouldn’t they sell you or I to law enforcement for a confidential informant reward that pays more than page views for non celebrities…or because prosecution is icing to the cake of persecution they desired?

Go read the depositions and testimony, then try and defend this shit. The former editor didn’t care if the content was Bollea or not aka if a clever photoshop would bring him the same page views he’d do it. They’d draw the line at publishing content of a child under the age of four. Let that sink in for a moment….of course it wouldn’t be porn cuz the content of celebrity or politician’s pre-adolescent child being groomed for sex or violently attacked is NEWSWORTHY. Thanks but no fucking TY there’s a reason many court records are sealed.

Six months ago they knew they were going to lose, they hoped for and expected a much lower verdict. Now they are moving to a political focus.

Many of the groups supporting Apple as a guard against government intrusion into our private lives aren’t trying to protect our privacy at all…they are absolutely fine with public persecution as long as it isn’t government prosecution. IDGAF who the self appointed sheriff is …they aren’t taking my right to privacy away 😉

@lurkingreader Do you believe in free speech so hard that you would support someone taking on Mike like that? Do you believe TMZ should be treated the same way? Sure, set it all on fire and let it burn.

@BT

Exactly retraction or correction in slander/libel cases are not ordered by the court. The court orders approval of party negotiated settlements that include retraction, correction/public apology or the jury verdict and monetary award.

I’m thinking the 4.95 per view will get drastically reduced…number and length of content avail for 4.95 vs this one item.

Don’t know the facts of this case, so only responding to posts. I do know the law in this area. A court would not order a media organization to remove a post – that’s called prior restraint.

That has nothing to do with whether the post is actionable. For example, I could write something that was knowingly untrue and patently libelous about an individual or a company. Let’s say that I convince a newspaper, magazine, or website to publish it. If the individual libeled went to the court and said this is heinous, please make them remove it, the court would decline to hear the case. The courts don’t control what media organizations choose to publish.

That doesn’t mean that the post isn’t libelous and actionable – suing for libel, invasion of privacy, etc., is the remedy and not courts censoring the news. That’s the way our system works.

So if people are saying well, the federal courts wouldn’t touch this with a ten foot pole because the courts wouldn’t require Gawker to remove it, they’re missing the point. That’s not what courts do.

@ivy

Through this case I’ve had many questions, none of which were posted here because the case never came up before the verdict. My cousin’s son went to school with Bollea’s kids…she is on gawkers side because she hates Bollea. Her dad (my uncle) told her two years ago not to get her hopes up that gawker would prevail. Coming from a large family we tend to take dissent of opinion in stride and divvy up wooden nickels at every family reunion. Me taking a hard line for the right to privacy isn’t new or limited to this case.

@lurkingreader I started reading gawker a little bit before the Hulk thing, and it’s a site I’ve ready daily since. Denton sums up, very well their position and what happened, and I agree with his points. Just odd to me that you would take such a hard line, considering you post on this site all the time. And what I mean to say is that you have very great analytical skills, and skeptical and ask questions. Just haven’t heard any of that for Gawker, from you.