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 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)
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.”
...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/
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/
Wrong. The verdict was decided by a jury, not by a judge. Gawker did appeal, and the judgement was stayed. They also filed for chapter 11, which doesn't necessarily mean the end of the company. Gawker then lost on appeal.
I get it, you hate Peter Thiel, but that doesn't make this verdict any less relevant, nor does it make Gawker any less of a shitty sleazy website.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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...