Wtf I love gawker now

Wtf I love gawker now

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PHow1B32WZw
hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/how-hulk-hogan-beat-gawker-880687
nakedcapitalism.com/2017/06/lee-camp-write-propaganda-ny-times-demonstrated-article.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I like how nobody talks about how this court case should effect stuff like TMZ.

>he thinks the case was about Hulk Hogan

Gawker was told to remove the video of Hulk and refused to do it. Pretty open and shut case

ITT: people commenting on a film they didn't watch

Hulk claims that he had a right to privacy. So you either believe that all famous people have that right. Which means you are against tmz or you don't which would put you on Gwakers side.

Yeah that's why they were going to court, to prove they could keep the Hulk movie online.

But Gawker ignored the court order and that's why they fucked up.

>Hulk claims that he had a right to privacy. So you either believe that all famous people have that right. Which means you are against tmz or you don't which would put you on Gwakers side.

He only had a right to privacy because he wasn't in a public place with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If he had done his sexing out of in the open it would be different.

Are you a retard what do you think Hulk said when he wanted it taken down in the first place?

So you are saying that a famous person is in public they have no rights.

youtube.com/watch?v=PHow1B32WZw

At least post the trailer

>So you are saying that a famous person is in public they have no rights.

No they have the same rights as everyone else where they can everything they do be recorded because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

There are laws against harassing people already if it comes to that, however they have the same rights everyone else does if they don't want to be messed with : The right to go somewhere private.

Clearly no one in this thread has seen this film. Pathetic

Someone give me a quick rundown on the case

> Condemn people for looking at JLaw's brests
> Literally publish and host leaked full-length sex tape
> It's ok because it's a man

enlighten us then

From my point of view the Hulk is evil

>no reasonable expectation of privacy.

You know the right to privacy is one of the amendment of america. It is why if some one takes your picture and post it online you have the legal right to take it down.

It's propaganda

He settled with Bubba for $4,000 for the leak? Are they still friends or what's going on with that?

And I didn't know about the Review-Journal stuff until this. That's fucked up how they handled the buyout.

I'd care more about the "free press" if they stopped publishing things that make them more money.

They've been propaganda for a long time already, now it just doesn't agree with their political views.

Whats the difference exactly?

>Gawker claims that the public has a right to watch the full video of a secret, hidden film that itself is technically illegal
>continues to serve it after being told it to take it down by a court
>actively hypocritical about it in every way
Gawker and Denton deserved it.

I smiled when I heard the lawyers for Hogan are actively trying to set the money amount so Denton can't fully declare bankruptcy and is fully financially fucked for life.

Gawker was great, even with all it's lefty flaws. If anything, the new fusion kinja site is a lot worse as far as leftist politics goes. It's such a shame they decided to make a shitty Hulk Hogan sex tape their Waterloo

>You know the right to privacy is one of the amendment of america. It is why if some one takes your picture and post it online you have the legal right to take it down.

In public. No you don't have a right to privacy. The reason for this is that you would have to convince everyone around you not to exercise their right to their own content that happens to have you in it.

If celebrities want to be out in public they have to understand that abide by the fact that other people have rights as well.

And plus fuck em.

>Hulk friends with Bubba
>Bubba let's him fuck his wife (cuck)
>Secretly films it
>Hulk is pissed (didn't want to be filmed)
>leaked to TMZ
>They sell to Gawker
>Gawker post it
>Hogan sues

The case is a little more complicated than this rundown but that's the gist of it. In some accounts, Hogan did know that he was being filmed and settled with Bubba only to go after Gawker. Mainly his lawsuit was bankrolled by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who wanted vengeance against Gawker for outing him as gay.

NONE OF YOU FAGGOTS HAS SEEN THE FILM
ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT IT ARE WORTHLESS AND THIS THREAD SUCKS
FUCK OFF

Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at America's Most Wanted's website, and you are not wanted -- by the law. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited.
Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph.
You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you.

Only NWO Hollywood deals in absolutes

>Secretly films it
>Hogan did know that he was being filmed and settled with Bubba only to go after Gawker
Gawker tried to argue Hogan knew, and that was unsuccessful. As far as the Hogan v. Gawker case, Hogan did not know. If he knew, and that was shown in court, he probably wouldn't have won.

Yes some stuff was settled out of court, but that's out of court and all secret/irrelevant to the case as far as the judge/jury is concerned.

>Gawker for outing him as gay.
This was so fucked up. And they did it to another ceo or something like that (cant remember who, some brother of a former secretary of the treasury). They had a policy of publishing whatever the fuck a writer wanted to. Of course they hired those writers so they deserve blame.

>waaah we're not allowed to break laws waaaaah

There's been enough talk about this story for months now on multiple outlets that we get what the documentary is trying to say based on the trailer. It's trying to say that millionaires/billionaires funding lawsuits that go after journalists is bad. Meanwhile it forgets all the previous shit Gawker did, the court order it ignored, and the fact that Gawker itself is a multi-million dollar company.

you're right, I actually watched the court proceedings live.

Again the Film is a propaganda hit piece

Tbh this is someone from the shadows targeting Peter Thiel than a documentary about free press and free speech. US already has strongest of both rights in the world, and select few billionaires already own most news media.
Worst "documentary" Netflix has ever piked up

>There's been enough talk about this story for months now on multiple outlets that we get what the documentary is trying to say based on the trailer. It's trying to say that millionaires/billionaires funding lawsuits that go after journalists is bad. Meanwhile it forgets all the previous shit Gawker did, the court order it ignored, and the fact that Gawker itself is a multi-million dollar company.

Maybe the solution is for the press to stop employing awful fucking journalists and perhaps they ought to stop fucking lying so much. No one gives a shit about their opinions, stop slanting the news to look one way or the other and do your fucking jobs.

Are you OP? What is YOUR opinion on it?

not just the Hogan case, but the review-Journal and Trump shit at the end

morons, all of you

You forgot the part where Hulkamania ran wild on Gawker

Go declare bankruptcy again, Denton.

I'm pretty sure you never watch the film. The film claims that Gwaker were the good guys and that the whole thing was an evil conspiracy by a rich billionaire.

It's not really even about Hulk Hogan, it's about Peter Theil using the legal system to punish Gawker for publishing the fact that he's gay and whether that will have any impact on whether the press can report on super-rich people in the future.

But hey let's all comment in a thread about the film without seeing it, that will be oh so interesting.

Gawker was an entertainment blog. Read the NYTimes or Wall Street Journal for actual journalism. If you think WSJ reporters are deliberately telling you anti trump lies and not collecting facts, then you're too far down the infowars rabbithole to save.

I watched yesterday you spaz

It WAS bankrolled by Peter Thiel. Are you seriously claiming it wasn't?

this

Still going for that free speech defense eh gawker?

And what if it was?

Does that give gawker moral standing?

>outed a gay guy
>fuck up his family and marriage
>meanwhile gawker is total hypocrites about it
>they do it again
>help fund the lawsuit
Thiel did nothing wrong, seems totally reasonable imo. Frankly., your argument is Gawker should be allowed to do illegal shit and not get surprised when someone with money funds the lawsuit that they "knew" would never happen, because it's too expensive for the normal plebs they shit on.

Thiel was more like a robin hood.

You're dumb as fuck my man. It doesn't matter what Hulk said in the first palce, the court ruled an order and gawker ignored it. That is why they got fucked over.

Maybe you should watch the documentary and decide for yourself instead of asking dumb questions in a thread full of people who don't know what they're talking about.

wtf everything you just listed shows you dont understand that public images and videos are in the public domain

youre retarded fuck off

>whether that will have any impact on whether the press can report on super-rich people in the future

It will be the same because they don't report on them now, or control the media anywau

Peter Theil did nothing wrong. Gwaker aren't the good guys they pretended to be.

>Read the NYTimes or Wall Street Journal for actual journalism.
I hope you're joking. They retract every other story they publish. Remember the 17 intelligence agencies narrative? Cane from NYT, every other news outlet picked it up and ran with it. NYT quietly retracted earlier this week. I bet WSJ didnt retract any articles they wrote based on the 17 agencies lie.

>hurr durr you are stupid

So no it doesnt then

Basically some shit about Hogan came out in a sex video and the court had ordered gawker to take it down, however they decided they did not have to follow the court order and then they were sued and later sold.

I didn't even make an argument like that, you're a fucking moron.

Talk shit get hit

Well you freaking the fuck out in the most faggy way possibly is definitely more interesting now

>they retract every other story they publish
Sup Forumstards ladies and gentlemen, they really are this stupid. Let's all give him a big hand. You win 1st prize buddy.

That is your argument though. Gawker should be protected from rich people helping fund lawsuits against them when they attack people they believe have no power to fight back.

You're saying that Gawker having to consider the legal ramifications of their actions (beyond the feasibility of them getting sued for it) is a violation of... something, free press?

GAWKER WAS A GOOD BOY

HE DINDU NUFFIN

DAT THEIL IS EVIL

Gawker shills on suicide watch

If Thiel didn't bankroll this case, do you guys think Hogan still would have won?

how retarded do you have to be to side with gawker over hulk hogan

>muh billionaires
and who funded this shitty documentary?

>public images and videos are in the public domain

Are you retared?

So what if it was funded? It didn't make evidence and testimonies appear out of no where. Gawker shot off it's own foot with all the depositions they gave laughing and not taking the issue seriously. Whole reason they lost was that no one believed they using the free speech defense properly in the first place.

>Sup Forumstards ladies and gentlemen, they really are this stupid. Let's all give him a big hand. You win 1st prize buddy.

reminder that passive aggressive snark like this is a sign of low test

yes, very clear cut

Just because they are an entertainment blog doesn't mean they have special permission to be treated differently by the law.
>loses argument
>TRUMP GETS TWO SCOOPS

It isn't my argument you fucking retard. You're just arguing with yourself because you're too fucking stupid to actually have a conversation.

>public images and videos are in the public domain
Are you implying that an illegally obtained image can be considered public domain?

but he's right user, they're constantly retracting all their big stories.

I hate Gawker you tard
Wrong, you're both stupid

Not an argument.

>If you think WSJ reporters are deliberately telling you anti trump lies

Cough cough Pewdiepie cough youtube cough cough

Gawker got what they deserved. The disobeyed a court order.

>it's about Peter Theil using the legal system to punish Gawker for publishing the fact that he's gay and whether that will have any impact on whether the press can report on super-rich people in the future.
>That is your argument though. Gawker should be protected from rich people helping fund lawsuits against them when they attack people they believe have no power to fight back.
>It isn't my argument you fucking retard. You're just arguing with yourself because you're too fucking stupid to actually have a conversation.
You must work for one of these Gawker sites to be this unaware.

Gawker is literally that guy sticking a pipe in his bike spokes meme.

Yes. Gawker's defense was a joke.

how about how the Gawker editor or whatever testified that he would post a sex video of a 6 year old girl, if he had access to it?

Gawker received everything they deserved

You can't spell oppressive without press. It's power as an institution in the form of multimedia corporations has become it's own oligarchical force. It needs to be reined in not by government or state run media, but by the people whenever they leave themselves open like Gawker did with Hulk. I like the tagline too, "The power of money to silence the free press" Knowing them, they want you to think the problem is that money CAN silence it rather than that you NEED money to do it, which is unfortunate. As it is if the media decides to turn its eye on you as an ordinary citizen and you're not wealthy enough to lawyer up, you can have your life ruined by a hitpeice and a few talking heads without any chance to fight back, at best you get a retraction in fine print nobody reads or remembers.

Yeah I didn't say that Gawker should be protected, you made that part up moron. I hate Gawker. You're just at the bottom of the gene pool is all.

Yes
Legally they were always fucked legally because Gawker behaved like massive morons
hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/how-hulk-hogan-beat-gawker-880687

>they're constantly retracting

You know that is a good thing right?

but... he was right, NYT did retract that story.

no delet this its all about theil being evil

Gawker lost the second they went
>we won't publish a sex tape of someone below 4

...

>every other story
Okay go ahead and prove to me that they retract 50% of their stories. I'll wait.

that story has been in the public for months, it's super old now. No, it's not good, because they're obviously shit at their jobs and everyone with a brain could tell.

it's blatant narrative crap. No one was shocked when that story was retracted a few days ago. Isn't that story pre-election, too? What a joke.

>if you kill your enemies, they win

you seem sort of dumb desu senpai

You can imagine how concerned I am about your opinion. Why don't you just continue to make comments about a film you haven't seen. What did you think of it?

You are confusing retacting with editing. A retracting comes with an apology and explanation. It's editing you have to look out for

Whenever I feel like sometimes things don't go right in this world, I read Denton's final letter on Gawker about the whole situation and smile. Dude was so fucking delusional

It's a shame that nothing really change and The Root is far worse than Gwaker.

No because youre not in public in your private bedroom you fucking idiot... what kinda dumbshit question is that? what kinda fucking retard infers "public images" to mean "taken in a private bedroom"

>website became famous because of gawker stalker
>dude we were legit journalists lol

you fucking stupid? show me when a public image and video isnt public domain

>get things wrong and then admit you were wrong after everyone already read it
wow so brave...

NYT is scum
nakedcapitalism.com/2017/06/lee-camp-write-propaganda-ny-times-demonstrated-article.html

I never said that. But to pick out Gawker and use it to generalize the media as a whole is wrong.