Slashdot Mirror
Free Speech vs Billionaires: Netflix Streams A New Documentary About The Gawker Verdict (businessinsider.com)
Speaking of Netflix, last month they began streaming "Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press" -- a new documentary by Brian Knappenberger about the Gawker verdict. An anonymous reader shares this description from Business Insider:
Knappenberger -- who previously made the movies "The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz," on internet activist Aaron Swartz, and "We Are Legion," about the hacker group Anonymous -- got in touch with Nick Denton and Gawker editor-in-chief (who also posted the Hogan sex tape video) A.J. Daulerio to be in the film as well as Hogan's lawyer David R. Houston... Knappenberger said he also tried to get Peter Thiel to be in the movie, but Thiel declined Knappenberger's numerous requests. And the movie shows how other people with money and influence can and do silence the media.
Knappenberger also showcases what happened to the Las Vegas Review-Journal at the end of 2015. The paper's staff was suddenly told that the paper had been sold, though they were never told who the new publisher was. A group of reporters found that the son-in-law of Las Vegas casino titan Sheldon Adelson was a major player in the purchase of the paper. According to the movie, Adelson had a vendetta with the paper's columnist John L. Smith, who wrote unflattering things about him in a 2005 book. Smith was even ordered after the paper was bought that he was never to write about Adelson in any of his pieces. For Knappenberger, there's no other way to look at it: The suppression of the media by billionaires is happening.
Knappenberger said if any legal documents arrive from the billionaires discussed in his movie, "We're ready for it." But he added that the bigger issue is getting people to understand that the loss of the free press is "the most important thing facing our country." Or, as a former Gawker editor says in the film, "If you're not pissing off a billionaire, what's the point?"
Knappenberger also showcases what happened to the Las Vegas Review-Journal at the end of 2015. The paper's staff was suddenly told that the paper had been sold, though they were never told who the new publisher was. A group of reporters found that the son-in-law of Las Vegas casino titan Sheldon Adelson was a major player in the purchase of the paper. According to the movie, Adelson had a vendetta with the paper's columnist John L. Smith, who wrote unflattering things about him in a 2005 book. Smith was even ordered after the paper was bought that he was never to write about Adelson in any of his pieces. For Knappenberger, there's no other way to look at it: The suppression of the media by billionaires is happening.
Knappenberger said if any legal documents arrive from the billionaires discussed in his movie, "We're ready for it." But he added that the bigger issue is getting people to understand that the loss of the free press is "the most important thing facing our country." Or, as a former Gawker editor says in the film, "If you're not pissing off a billionaire, what's the point?"
Clearly a repeat from 1941.
Gotta protect that sacred right to publish other people's sex tapes.
You are free to say what you like, but you are not free from the repercussions of your actions. If you cause harm to others, you open yourself up to criminal or civil penalties.
Frederic Remington, an artist hired by Hearst to provide illustrations to accompany a series of articles on the Cuban Revolution, soon became bored with seemingly peaceful Cuba and wired Hearst in January 1897: "Everything is quiet. There is no trouble. There will be no war. I wish to return." To which Hearst's alleged[6] reply was: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–American_War
How is a pro wrestler having sex and making rude comments newsworthy? It serves no purpose in public discourse and also destroyed a mans capability to earn money in his trade.
It doesn't matter to me who funded what. It seems to me that Justus won in the Hulk Hogan case.
Billionaires have been skewing the news to the extreme right or extreme left for decades. For the last 30 years there hasn't been a news service that didn't skew to which ever direction brought the most ads, commercials, readers or viewers.
Pick any subject and you won't find opposing view points within the same source nor from disparate sources.
Hogan is NOT a billionaire. He doesn't even break 10 million... So it seems the guy who made the documentary has trouble counting... LoL
You keep talking about the press, but then you mention Gawker and Nick Denton. Make up your mind, which one is the piece about?
There are hundreds of news organizations in the US alone that have been pressured by moneyed interests, why choose Gawker? They were the least ethical trash rag you could ever find, and both the writing and ethics quality of the US press went up by a small but significant percentage the day Hulkster gave them the final bodyslam.
Here's the deal - ...watching). Peter Thiel funded the case because Gawker had earlier decided to out Thiel as a homosexual, something he didn't want publicly known. Both of these things are pretty gross by human standards, and the "press" is supposed to follow certain ethical guidelines if the Society of Professional Journalists is to be believed (https://www.spj.org/)
Hulk Hogan went after them because they published (and refused to take down) his *private* recording of him doing his friend's wife (with his friend in the room
All in all, killing Gawker and all it's vile subsidiaries (which unfortunately didn't happen) was of big help to the free press since it then had one black sheep flock less to tarnish its reputation, and there was more space left for real, actual, objective, journalism to use.
So in summary - The free press is critical to a functional society, and Gawker's demise improved the life of everyone on the planet by a small percentage (except for dickwolves Nick Denton and Sam "Bring back bullying" Biddle)
i realized that
1. Jimmy Wales is completely shielded from prosecution by DMCA, unlike a traditional publisher
2. Jimmy Wales consciously has made no effort to warn authors about potential liability of articles they write
3. Citing sources for what you write offers you zero protection
4. Billionaires do not like their wikipedia articles containing a bunch of information about all the horrible shit they have done or all the people they have harmed
Then, THEN, Gawker decided to double down on their stupid and leak sealed documents (a recording they had in possession) of Terry Bollea going on a "racist rant" costing Bollea him his WWE job. You know, the sealed documents that only Gawker had in their possession, the videos that the previous court ordered sealed...
So yeah, no sympathy for Gawker, what-so-fucking-ever, and this is NOT a case of "free speech".
And of course, lets not forget this gem:
Later asked by an attorney for Hogan if there was a situation in which a celebrity sex tape might not be newsworthy, Delaurio responded: “If they were a child.”
The attorney then asked him to specify: a child under what age? Daulerio responded: “Four.”
either work for multi-national corporations, or oligarchs. Its rather silly to believe that free speech is being stifled by billionaires now when editorial decisions of news organizations have always had to contend with the influence of advertisers, or publishing owners. or the government. There's always been friction there and there always will be.
...then every pervert posting illicit upskirt pictures of women without permission is a champion of the first amendment.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Gawker wasn't journalism by any stretch. They deserve what they got for their despicable behaviour.
as a former Gawker editor says in the film, "If you're not pissing off a billionaire, what's the point?"
I do not believe free speech provides a cloak of invulnerability that allows a person to insult someone they don't like, without any consequences.
And if you make a business out of honking-off powerful people, you should not be surprised when they eventually decide to squash your like a bug.
Also, nobody should be under the illusion that dishing the dirt (whether true or not) on people you envy, just because you disagree with them or dislike what they stand for, is by default responsible journalism.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Worth a read. Even Hulk Hogan couldn't afford justice and needed a billionaire's help.
https://jebkinnison.com/2016/06/29/the-justice-is-too-damn-high-gawker-the-high-cost-of-litigation-and-the-weapon-shops-of-isher/
but Peter Thiel is an investor in Reddit.
which did not host just one sex tape, but hundreds and hundreds of people's private photos.
they are protected by DMCA but also by the double standard being applied to Gawker...
the documentary makes it clear Thiel attacked Gawker because they wrote negatively about his hedge fund and his rich friends.
This is pure historical revisionism, and it's disgusting to watch. I wonder if they feel the same way about the fappening awhile back, with all the leaks of nude female celebrities.
Private is private. Private is not going on Howard Stern multiple times discussing how you video tape your wife swapping with your buddy, a co-host on said show, prior to said tapes being released, arguably by your buddy.
If Gawker hadn't published nude videos of people without seeking those peoples' permission, Thiel would have just been angry and done nothing. Personally, I don't think publishing nude pictures or videos of people without their permission is a good thing, nor do I really consider it falling under free speech. Gawker deserved to lose this.
Only an idiot or a person who wanted to publish clickbait would even consider publishing garbage like this.
ThIel went after gawker for outing him as a gay guy supporting anti gay legislation. THAT was the kickoff.
Just to say, I enjoyed it. I especially liked the structure, which focused on the main law suit, before introducing the Thiel issue, and then moving on to discuss other issues. It packaged up a multi-layered story in a neat, easily-digestible bundle.
I feel so bad... so terrible... for a magazine that outed gay men, and leaked people's private sexual activities.
When "Gawker"--a universally hated organization among journalists and human beings--are "The good guys", it's pretty easy to call bullshit on the entire thesis of the documentary. What's next? Saying pedophiles are just misunderstood?
http://gawker.com/5941037/born...
Oh.... shit.
Talking about a piece of video, does NOT mean its automatically something you want a supposed "NEWS" organization to post online... NOR does it automatically mean you can no longer defame that person. Gawker played with DEFAMATION... and lost. Rightfully so. That man had just as much right for that tape never to be seen the day before he went on Howard Stern, as he did the day after. Going on a show does not automatically exempt you from being someone who can be subject to defamation. That is just PISS POOR logic.
https://politics.slashdot.org/...
I set the Las Vegas Review Journal domain to localhost, lest I be tempted to read the devil's paper again.
You keep talking about the press, but then you mention Gawker and Nick Denton. Make up your mind, which one is the piece about?
Be careful on who you choose that "deserves" protection:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Snore.
Oh yeah, even going so far to post a video of a rape of a college co-ed and saying to the victim to "not make a big deal of this" when she pleaded with them to remove it.
Gawker has zero shit to do with anything resembling journalism.
Gawker (and all its subsites) is just industrialized slander, nothing more. If the HH-case were the first mistake they made, I would think different, but this case was really just the straw that broke the donkeys back. 10 years of abuse towards its interns, readers, the general public, gun owners, photographs... that finally came crashing down.
They were one of those street thugs that thought messing with a made man was a good idea to show everyone how tough they are. Now they lie in the ditch with a hole in the head and whine about it.
A monster in a horror flick does not become the innocent final girl just because it has flayed her and now wears her skin and face; Gawker is not journalism even though they occasionally employ journalistoid techniques.
...of this netflix documentary and laughed out loud. It obviously casts Hulk Hogan as the villian and Gawker as an innocent crushed under the bootheel of censorship. This is so far from reality and the views of everyone who knows anything about this story. It is very clear that this "documentary" 's purpose is solely to push an agenda. Complete and total crap.
If the press actually cared about the truth and having accurate, verified facts, I would care more. As it is, Gawker got what they legally deserved, and I hope Hogan owns the houses of the asshats in charge at Gawker and everyone else associated with that sex tape too. Actions have consequences, and we have an out of control press these days that cares more about their agenda than they do about the truth. That is by far more dangerous to our democracy than a few rich people buying newspapers to get better press.
Something like 50% of all adults no longer trust CNN now, thanks to all their BS reporting of the Russian hacking and followon reporting. That is not a good place to be for a news outlet. When CNN ties MSNBC for distrust numbers, maybe they will clean house and start pursuing the truth, regardless of who benefits... But I am not holding my breath.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Third World Status, Here we come!!!!
When was it every ok to shoot someone down because they have their own opinion?
How about People's magazine and other magazines/news paper you find when checking out at a store?
Why single out just one news outlet?
Lots of people say I'm gay. But, it's ok. " It's their own opinion. "
FACT: I'm a Christian, married to a lady, and I have kids.
Should I go after them because they say that I'm GAY? Should we reduce ourselves to a 3rd world status type of attitude?
Hell!! FIND NEW FRIENDS... READ A DIFFERENT NEWS PAPER AND CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!!
Lets not turn our country into a 3rd world status type of mentality.
and financed it with tabloid style scandals. Normally they'd have been fine. What got them is they didn't know that Hogan had that billionaire behind him until it was too late. Hogan's sex tape had some legitimate newsworthiness. Specifically his racially charged comments. As a public figure Gawker is well within their rights to report on them. What's more, we've lost a legitimate source of good 'ole fashion muck racking of the kind that used to keep abuses by the rich in check.
Whatever your personal views on Gawker you're going to regret losing them as the billionaire class can now operate in shadow. Good luck starting your business if it competes with or even gets noticed by them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
in the entertainment biz. Most celebrities use the publicity to their advantage and happily pocket the settlement money. That's where Gawker screwed up. They thought this was a routine legal dispute over a celebrity sex tape. That Hogan was in it for the publicity and money same as them. If Gawker really was just an entertainment rag this wouldn't be an issue. But then again, if they were just an entertainment rag they wouldn't have gotten shut down by a billionaire and his money.
For what it's worth Gawker did lots of good journalism and funded it with shlock. They were one of the last sources of political muckracking of the kind that exposes the worst of our system. And we just lost them. If you think we're not worse off for it you haven't been paying attention.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They said he was gay, and he's gay. He didn't like it because he tries to raise finance in Saudi Arabia and gays are illegal there.
Theil put money above free speech.
As to Hulk Hogans right to privacy, he fucked a woman that was someone else's wife, and presumably they leaked the video to bolster their career (as a shock jock), or maybe by Peter Thiel for a mechanism to sue. Whatever, Gawker had no duty to Hulk Hogan beyond the laws of the land. The jury verdict was a misverdict in law.
Peter Theil should not be getting money from Saudi Arabia if their laws conflicts with his lifestyle, and trying to shut down the messanger further compounds his evil.
The jury only finds innocent. The Judge finds the punishment.
Silencing reporters yes. Due to fake news and hit pieces i am not surprised. But you cant silence the media.
Free press is not the same as journalism. Until the free press remembers their role as journalists they deserve no protection and no special status.
EditorDavid, take a good look at your life
For all those crying about free speech, defamation has been a legitimate private tort ever since day one of the Republic.
This suit has nothing to do with the government "silencing" DeLaurio. It has to do with he and his cronies at Gaewker intentionally and with actual malice damaging the reputation of Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) with a sex tape made surreptitiously and with the intent of blackmailing Bollea. The only part of it that is newsworthy is the fact that his "friends" made it in an attempt to extort him. Furthermore, "the government" is not trying to silence Gawker. Rather, the victim of their defamation is seeking recompense for the reputational damage he suffered as a result of their actions.
Likewise, like it or not, the owners of a newspaper are perfectly within their rights when it comes to editorial standards and what they choose to publish. They are private entities and are not subject to First Amendment protections, which apply only to government actions. If the reporters don't agree, absolutely nothing is stopping them form finding other outlets that will publish their stories, or even self-publishing on the internet. Screaming "boo hoo, my private employer refuses to stand by my actions which reflect poorly on them or expose them to massive legal liability" is not an argument that one's free speech rights are being violated.
I have seen the documentary. This documentary isn't all about Gawker. I am not going to comment on the Gawker situation. However, no one here seems to be mentioning what happened to the Las Vegas Review-Journal or how Billionaire Adelson, bought the paper and ordered someone not to write about him. Adelson even brought suit against him and t hen offered to take care of the journalist's kid's medical bills and drop the suit if he would retract his earlier comments. The journalist refused. However, almost everyone that wrote the article about Adelson's family acquiring the paper no longer work for said company. While the legality of this is up for debate it does go to show that with enough money you can silence anyone. Free Speech and Freedom of the Press only work if you have the funding to back your side.
Gawker was totally in the wrong and the jury decided that and Gawker lost on appeal as well. Just because "media" doesn't give carte blanche to do whatever. So bad poster child for the movie.
This documentary suck big time, it started as Hulk Hogan vs Gawker then moved to Peter Thiel vs Gawker out in the middle put something about a small paper being "censored" and suddenly it was Trump vs the Media... like wtf was this shit about? to me it was a libertarian Ayn Rand type bullshit documentary that in the end just wanted to put Trump down just like every democrat outthere
I love reading the right wingers spin this as not free speech. I love reading their hypocrisy. One minute they are screaming about the freedom to call people racist shit in their face and the next they are talking about responsibility and having to face consequences when their values are attacked. Hilarious.
The Gawker editor who said, in the movie, "If you're not pissing off a billionaire, what's the point?" identifies the problem. Journalism's point isn't to annoy rich people. That a Gawker editor thinks it is shows that Gawker was never legitimate journalism. Just tawdry gossip.
The Free Press is like the idea of Democracy.....
It's an Ideal, not something tangible and as soon as someone gets offended it's out the window.
Is someone trying to defend Gawker and paint them as a victim? That's insane. Burn them to the ground and spit on their corpse.