DescentBB

Bet you think this is another post about Trump but you be wrong. The jury has awarded Hulk Hogan 115 million for invasion of privacy for a sex tape of the Hulk doing the deed with a friends wife. Gawker owner seemed to think it was fine to do so as they were acting like a news source. The jury thought otherwise. I followed this case only marginally but I knew Gawker was doomed when the owner stated that he drew the line at children under 5 sex tapes. Guys a moron.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-es ... ict-876768

What "free speech" was invoked here? Was Gawker making a political statement against the government?

what this comes down to is that "free speech" is misleading terminology. What the law actually protects is more accurately termed "free exchange of ideas".

So, for example, you don't have the right to yell incoherent nonsense at 3 AM in a residential neighborhood (but if you're yelling a tsunami warning because there's *actually* an inbound tsunami, that's allowed.) You don't have the right to publish known lies about somebody in order to harm their reputation. You don't have the right to violate peoples' privacy and then publish their nudes. You don't have the right to force other people to listen to you, for example by posting your controversial speech on public transportation or by going in to someone's hospital room where they're a "captive audience". And you don't have the right to create, distribute, or acquire child porn or to share pornographic material with children.

What you do have is the right to share your political, religious, and moral ideas both privately and publicly, in various formats including written, spoken, video, and art, without facing either censorship or retribution from the government.

I have no problem with the terminology, but I do have a problem with how that terminology is defined, so I do agree with most of what you said.

Yes “free speech” is the right to engage in political, religious or whatever kind of speech without government intervention* not the right to expose someone’s personal life to the public.

*With the exception of plotting to commit a crime, and other fore mentioned examples.

vision wrote:What "free speech" was invoked here? Was Gawker making a political statement against the government?

No, Gawker seems to have thought as a quasi news outlet,, it has the right to post what ever it wants in the name of free speech.

no, it doesn't. As stated quite well above, privacy rights do essentially trump the right to disseminate personal information, unless the person is of
significant public presence. Where this case got tricky was whether Hulk Hogan, clearly a public presence was just a stage character, created by Terry whatever his name is, and separate from Terry's personal life and privacy. The court ruled that the man had a right to privacy in his personal life. I can see it being a really damned grey area.

Slick I said what Gawker thought...not a general statement about privacy rights.

Chalk it up to being used to changing everything people say?

Yea, TG, I'm practicing my suck up routine.