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?"

6 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Yea okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gotta protect that sacred right to publish other people's sex tapes.

  2. Gawker burned to the ground, and good riddance by TimothyHollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 -
    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 ...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/)

    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)

    1. Re:Gawker burned to the ground, and good riddance by Pluvius · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I'm having a hard time seeing what its mission has to do with Gawker. Even free-speech fundamentalists like us acknowledge limits, and one of those limits is the right to privacy. The only exception to that is if the speech is something newsworthy about a public figure, and that sex tape was decidedly not newsworthy.

      https://aclum.org/civil-liberties-minute/did-gawker-have-a-first-amendment-right-to-publish-hulk-hogans-sex-tape/

      With gawker out of the way, they're moving onto defending a clear scammer [wsj.com] against deadspin.

      Who's "they"? Certainly not Peter Thiel, the guy who you and this documentary are blaming for the death of freedom of the press in this country. He has nothing to do with that lawsuit.

      Rob

  3. Free Speech? More like compliance with court... by Marful · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The Gawker case wasn't an issue of free speech, and trying to change the narrative to that is incredibly disingenuous. Gawker failed to comply with a court ruling and got taken to task for violating a court order.

    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.”

    1. Re:Free Speech? More like compliance with court... by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right that gawker made serious errors in the Hogan case. Maybe they could have survived had they played that smarter. But you're living in a just world fallacy if you think that makes it okay or removes all freedom of press issues.

      There is no fallacy in believing that if Gawker made serious errors in the Hogan case and was made to compensate Hogan, that makes it OK. Those were the facts of the case, and yelling "just world fallacy" is simply a way of arguing that if reality was different, then the outcome would not have been acceptable. But reality was not different, and the only alternative is the view that if Gawker could have outspent Hogan, denied him compensation, and thus survived, that would be OK.

      Gawker wronged Hogan, started juggling metaphorical bombs, and blew itself up when its skills didn't match its own expectations.

      I don't feel sad, or threatened in my civil liberties, by the outcome.

  4. Re:Free Speech? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.