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?"
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
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)
Hulk Hogan, the public persona was a MADE UP CHARICTER. Unlike youth ministers who directly interact with kids, he is a performance artist, a character actor who's character happens to body slam other characters.
If you teach your kids that looking up to pro wrestlers is good and healthy you are a terrible parent. You watch and enjoy the show and separate it from reality.
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/
Consider watching the documentary. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it never claims Hogan is a billionaire. The mentioned billionaire is not Hogan, it's Peter Thiel and a few other wealthy people influencing media. The summary may not be very clear, but I'm pretty sure the filmmaker can count.
Tell that to the guy who cant determine billionaires from millionaires.... LoL!
Except that Hogan initiated the suit... not Thiel.
He can fund whoever he is friends with, and that is his business... His dollar value doesn't change that. Perfectly Legal. Doesn't change the fact that the tape was private, released without permission, obtained without permission, and resulted in massive damages to the Plaintiff in his career and personal image. (Which is his product and brand FYI...) Defamation is defamation. Gawker broke a court order and DESERVED what it got. EVERYONE is allowed a private life. Even tiny little pee pee wearer Hulk Hogan. (And just the FACT that I know that, means he SHOULD have won. It wasn't gawker's, Nor ANYONE elses business!)
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/
How is a pro wrestler having sex and making rude comments newsworthy?
The 1st Amendment says nothing about "newsworthiness".
It serves no purpose in public discourse
Speech does not have to "serve a purpose" or contribute to "public discourse" to be protected.
Gawker lost because they violated Hogan's privacy rights by using a surreptitiously recorded tape, which was an illegal recording.
Except Thiel was paying for Hogan's lawyer. And also fronting the same lawyer to work for Shiva Ayyadurai to sue Gawker, for printing an article that denied his claim of inventing email.
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.
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.
No, it was a wrestling personality being shown to have a small penis... what, pray-tell, would be MORE damaging to w WRESTLER than that? Seriously?
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.
I have attempted several times to figure out your statement and each time I run into too many fallacies or other contradictions to derive any functional meaning from it.
An example problem:
Post-modern nonproductive billionaires are essentially the group that the Marxists were most disgusted with. Marxism doesn't care for the centralization of resources to the wealthy even if those wealthy individuals use their fortunes, but is even more disgusted with the consolidation of wealth in the hands of those that simply hoard it. Trotsky and Marxism is therefore essentially incompatible with the state of being a nonproductive billionaire.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
Except that the defamation still took place. Thiel funding Hogan is IRRELEVANT. The case still would have been won. The Evidence didn't change based on who funded the suit! LOL!
AND? All still legal... What GAWKER did... wasn't... Hence the outcome.
If anything, Thiel's intervention, arguably, saved Hogan from losing his suit under "Them with the deepest pockets wins".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
...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.
Trotsky is incompatible with just about everything but selling newspapers at the lit table in the student union.
Gawker planned on having a jolly good time baiting Hogan in court. They figured he had some money, but they had more and would make even more in the process of the legal proceedings.
Then Thiel came along and said 'fuck this stuff.'
Poor little Denton didn't get to be the biggest bully on the playground.
Gawker was in the business of making money by stirring up shit. They thought they were going to make a mint and burn up Hogan's fortune at the same time.
Ooops.
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
The 1st Amendment says nothing about "newsworthiness".
And the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about "assault weapons", yet here we are.
There have always been "reasonable" exceptions and limitations on constitutional rights.
Gawker was well within their rights to report on the comments, not release the tape. Much in the same way an ex-boyfriend can legally tell people how the sex went but can't sell the tape without consent of all the people in it.
We consider revenge-porn a deplorable act. Gawker certainly was trying their damnedest to complete that act.
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.
Both statements are untrue. What got them was ignoring an order of the court to take down the nude and sexual images and videos they published without permission.
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.
The billionaire class is already operating out of the shadows - see gawkers response to the fappening and their response to hogan. One sex scandal is "bad" because it offends gawkers ideology and the other one is "good" because it reinforces gawkers ideology: Here is the position that gawker takes.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
No, you are misusing the word "reasonable" in this context.
The First and Second amendments are absolutist in their proscription of congressional action. The "reasonable" value judgement was made by supermajorties of The People (and their elected representatives).
It is not for future generations to rub their chins and decide some new limitation may be cavalierly added. If The People want it, they can go through the deliberately difficult process of supermajority changes to it to grant the government power to limit speech, or arms.
Your flaw in thinking is that a simple majority (and a transient one from the latest political road rage) is sufficient to do this. Except that is exactly what this constitutional design was created to put the brakes on.
If it is such a great idea, most will agree, not merely a simple majority, and will do so years from now, too, and not just now when heads are hot.
Now, when heads are hot, is how stupid societies in ancient times (Rome, Greece) and more modern times (1930s Germany, and Venezuela right now) grant "temporary" emergency powers to the leader, who never gives it up.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Sad to say, but rich people "investing" in a lawsuit is perfectly normal.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'm pretty sure that even in Saudi Arabia an actual act is required for a crime. Merely having a predilection is not enough.
The relative merits of Gawker aside, the issue here is fair access to justice.
The rich have better access to justice. They can afford expensive legal action and the risk it carries, and they can afford lawyers with more time and resources to dedicate to them.
Anyone should be able to do what Hogan did, without the backing of a billionaire.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What got them is they didn't know that Hogan had that billionaire behind him until it was too late.
Wrong. What got them was the fact that they refused multiple court orders to take it down. It wasn't the "billionare behind him." It wasn't because it wasn't actually newsworthy(if you define some guy screwing someone else newsworthy). It was simply that: They refused to follow the law, and the jury agreed with the reasoning with that.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
The problem is that the media have done this to themselves by showing their bias for way too long. They have done everything they could do to destroy any credibility they had.
We had 8 years of softball press where we would listen to them laugh and clap with the president and his staff (when he wasn't straight out hiring them.) Now we have the extreme opposite. Their hatred towards the new president oozes from the angles of the stories they take and news titles they use and even the news tickers running at the bottom of the TV. If Trump had followed Bush, the obviousness of the bias stemming from their hate would not be as evident, but coming off the past 8 years of reporting, it's impossible to miss.
Additionally, there are so many new online outlets for news, that we do still have a free press. Just the tradition newspaper and TV press no longer have the influence they use to have.
He had a kids cartoon
So did Batman. So did Ren and Stimpy.
When does the man behind Hulk Hogan have a right to privacy?
Gawker was in the business of making money by stirring up shit. They thought they were going to make a mint and burn up Hogan's fortune at the same time.
Ooops.
And it sure as hell couldn't have happened to a bigger group of assholes.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The secret to being a great president is knowing when to keep your damn mouth shut.
The press want, no, NEED a spectacle daily. With Obama, all they had was who he was trying hire and the weekly Obamacare something. Otherwise there was nothing to talk about him. Hell, his entire platform when he was getting elected was "Vote for me, because I have no skeletons and I might change something..maybe"
Trump tweets constantly about stuff that even fourteen year old knows its stupid to do. Of course the media will jump on it, its easy filler and the media has ALWAYS been easy. CNN picks up the piece, FoxNews spins it, NPR/BBC pulls out some boring but relevant facts, and Youtube laughs at everyone bias's. Then everyone waits for the next stupid tweet and we got another news week fellas!
As Roosevelt said, "speak softly, and carry a big stick." He could be in the background using his money and connections to do anything he wants, but instead waists ALL that potential on his damn twitter.
As a side note, I did vote for Trump because I was hoping this was all a ruse and he would get serious when he came to power. If he had killed his twitter account, I wouldn't be so angry as I am now.
Gawker stopped being a tormentor of the Manhattan elite media years ago. Instead, “Whatever information we have, whatever insight we have, whatever knowledge we have, our impulse is to share it as quickly as possible, and sometimes with as little thought as possible,” Denton told me after we had settled into a small conference room. “Before you can think about it too much, just put it out there, just share it out there. I think that’s the essence of who we are.”
That's Nick Denton, early summer 2015, before the final verdict. OP's right, they did something stupid. Denton's not in jail, and his ability to dig up slime hasn't gone away. Beside, isn't there literally an army of SJW's with communications and journalism degrees swinging quixotically at everything money? That they don't have much says nothing about the health of our freedom of speech laws, and says everything about how hard it is to do real journalism.
damaged by dogma
Interesting that the only thing that allowed Hogan to get justice was the backing of a billionaire.
Gawker was free to trample on his personal privacy without any fear of repercussions as long as he didn't have someone to bankroll his day in court.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Why do the *verbal* comments requite *showing* a sex type. They could either cut out the audio portion, or simply transcribe them. If Gawker were a TV show, they could figure out how to cover the story without breaking FCC rules. Surely they could figure this out. They were multi-million dollar company.
I hated most of the people that worked there. They were all a bunch of pricks that were full of themselves. And their attitudes were fueled by poor leadership at the top. I'm all for a news organization that gets into the muck of news scandals, but they need to be smart about it, and they need to be run like a professional news organization. And not a blog of writers with teenage quality smarmy writing.
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.
Bush tried that and was destroyed. For his 8 years, we heard just one side of a story.
I agree that it would be nice to have something in the middle as far as approaches go. That said, after watching our side say and do nothing (except sell each other out), it is a welcome change.
The people that hate him were going to hate him no matter what. He has successfully allowed the media to portray themselves for the partisan hacks they are which helps ensure that the people that like or tolerate Trump know not to listen to the mainstream press.
We now have nothing but large echo chambers for all involved from the mainstream media but with the increasing non mainstream media, it is at least more possible to get more information outside your echo chamber without having to jump into their echo chamber.
And the press thoroughly rejected that "initiative" every step of the way (minus a brief time when Hillary's camp leveled that charge against Obama.) Not even close to the same thing that is being discussed in this topic.