hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

I mean I get what journalists do. I'm one of the biggest free speech stans on this board. and I get that in order to correct what are (rightfully) seen as the shortcomings of the traditional journalism industry, fuckups like these are going to happen. it would just be nice if the website's editors had a bit more moral integrity; you can defend the action on free speech grounds while conceding that a line was crossed and steps will be taken to improve

kevin, you're arguing a tautology

"i said you're wrong why won't you admit that you're wrong"

also how can you defend the action on free speech grounds but also concede that a line was crossed? anyone arguing against the publication of the video is saying that footage from sex tapes should not fall under the umbrella of free speech

but it's a little harder to watch when ppl one likes are involved and defending it as necessary to freedom when everyone knows it was for hits.

― mookieproof, Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:16 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is such a weird assumption--there are a huge number of things that gawker could do "for hits" that it didnt or doesnt. it makes me so mad, actually! i think would rather people take gawker at its word that it finds the things it publishes interesting than assume that kind of sad cynicism to the site. (& not to split hairs but the idea is not that publishing the 90 second video was "necessary to freedom," just that the government declining to suppress the tape is.)

also how can you defend the action on free speech grounds but also concede that a line was crossed? anyone arguing against the publication of the video is saying that footage from sex tapes should not fall under the umbrella of free speech

There are moral lines not dealt with by the legal system.

there are a huge number of things that gawker could do "for hits" that it didnt or doesnt

do tell!

A sex tape shouldn't have to be newsworthy to be published, more an issue of copyright really.

publishing "the fappening" photographs, for example xp

i mean i guess you don't have a page 3

anyway i suppose i should bow out of this thread again now that that we've established that everyone agrees the 90 second video should be protected on free speech grounds and the only issue seems to be that i am supposed to admit it was an asshole move that crossed a line (it wasnt, and i wont, but i dont think we are going to reach an agreement on this question).

here are moral lines not dealt with by the legal system.

― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:46 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

sure but if you're saying that it's so immoral to publish sex tape footage that it should never happen then you're functionally arguing for it to be banned speech

ok, what's the difference? the fappening sounds pretty newsworthy

xp ok xo

the fappening itself was newsworthy and we covered it aggressively but the photographs themselves dont, e.g., as the hogan video did, establish the truth or falsity of the claim of public figure, or dont settle widely circulated rumors,

here are moral lines not dealt with by the legal system.

― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:46 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

sure but if you're saying that it's so immoral to publish sex tape footage that it should never happen then you're functionally arguing for it to be banned speech

Uh lots of immoral speech is entirely constitutional.

Yeah like the racist subreddits gawker (rightly) criticizes reddit for hosting

kevin, you're arguing a tautology

― J0rdan S., Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:29 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"i said you're wrong why won't you admit that you're wrong"

― J0rdan S., Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:29 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

also how can you defend the action on free speech grounds but also concede that a line was crossed? anyone arguing against the publication of the video is saying that footage from sex tapes should not fall under the umbrella of free speech

― J0rdan S., Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:40 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

we'll yeah, it's true that my argument rests on the assumption that, despite the broad protections afforded to the press (of which I am strongly in favor), there are certain moral or ethical issues with publishing just anything. given that max/lagoon/you have refused to concede that, I suppose my argument is tautological

Or, my god, the subreddits modded by that one guy gawker exposed a few years ago

my response to your last point should be self evident but Matt A has covered it already xp

the fappening itself was newsworthy and we covered it aggressively but the photographs themselves dont, e.g., as the hogan video did, establish the truth or falsity of the claim of public figure, or dont settle widely circulated rumors,

The fact that the video had been discussed publicly and was thus newsworthy is definitely something that I think gawker's critics are eliding here.

Otoh the original piece basically felt like hey here's hogan's cock instead of anything to do with correcting the record. IIRC

there are absolutely moral or ethical issues with publishing "just anything." gawker does not publish a great deal of content that would fall under the category of legally protected speech. the question is whether publishing 10 seconds of hulk hogan having sex with bubba the love sponge's wife crosses some kind of moral/ethical rubicon. it doesnt! it shouldnt! and now we've just arrived back where this thread started

is this thread going to be submitted as evidence now

there are absolutely moral or ethical issues with publishing "just anything." gawker does not publish a great deal of content that would fall under the category of legally protected speech. the question is whether publishing 10 seconds of hulk hogan having sex with bubba the love sponge's wife crosses some kind of moral/ethical rubicon. it doesnt! it shouldnt! and now we've just arrived back where this thread started

― max, Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:57 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thanks for the fappening example, point well taken. as far as the hogan thing goes, I guess we're just not going to agree on whether it was necessary to publish that. iirc Denton himself alluded to it implicitly as something gawker was "not proud of", which is as good as it's gonna get. the realization that mistakes can be made in the pursuit of boundary-pushing vis-a-vis journalistic standards (which as I've conceded before is a worthwhile exercise) is a healthy one, imo

celeb sex tapes used to be good wholesome fun, times have really changed.

i dont think denton ever alluded to the hogan tape as something he wasn't proud of

the hulk discussion is sort of a distraction i think because sex tapes have been published/distributed several times over and, barring gawker getting crippled in the trial, will continue to be published/widely distributed as long as they're made. sex tapes have normalized considerably over time, and in the cases of people like tommy lee & pam anderson or kim & ray j, they have even been widely accepted by society. people debate whether kim kardashian has the "right" to be as famous as she is because she was for a long time most noteworthy for having appeared in a sex tape ("no talent!"), but basically nobody ever debates whether the sex tape should have been published/distributed in the first place, or whether some horrible injustice was inflicted upon her because it's so readily available. (obv i'm accepting here that the kim tape was leaked/sold/distributed w/o her secret cooperation. if that's not the case there are other, similar examples.) the hogan tape is only a controversy because he's suing, and because the suit has made it to trial. if he hadn't sued or if it was dismissed years ago the public would have long forgotten about it. (there is a lesson for hulk there, of course.)

but the hacked reddit nudes are a more interesting case. for example, gawker posted olivia munn & christina hendricks nudes in 2012. those nudes were obtained via a hack. when the nude hack happened this time around, gawker didn't publish any of the photos, and neither did any websites or blogs. reddit nuked any links to them, so did imgur. part of this is legal -- celebrity legal teams have gotten smarter about how to attack these sorts of incidents -- but much of it was moral. those images were banished to the very dark corners of the web. the world has become more aware of what women are subjected to online, and making the internet a safer space for women has become an increasingly important issue over time, to which everyone must contribute, and thus the collective moral compass has realigned itself.

i was thinking about this earlier this week because there were a lot of people asking how gawker/i would publish a photo of tyga's dick but not fappening nudes. there are several differences between the two but one is that the way the internet operates in 2015 necessitates a higher (very high) bar for publishing nude images of a female celebrity without her consent, whereas i think the bar for a male celeb's nudes is much, much lower. (this is all very imo for the record.) the newsworthiness is not exactly different, but gawker (for instance) would have had to be as evil as its worst critics say it is to not consider what publishing the hacked reddit nudes would mean for its subjects.

xp think k3vin is referring to this from the New York Times article and remembering incorrectly:

“A lot of our traffic last year came from stories that we weren’t ultimately proud of,” Mr. Denton said. He cited Gawker Media’s biggest traffic sensation in 2014, a video compilation of people messing up the Ice Bucket Challenge that has attracted more than 16 million views. “You’re going to get a spike from a story like that, but at the end of the year, what does it say about your brand, and are you measuring that?” Mr. Denton would prefer to see his brand associated with the Manti T’eo story, or Gizmodo’s iPhone 4 scoop (in 2010, it bought a prototype of the as-yet-unreleased phone), or the 2013 post by a Gawker writer who had watched a cellphone video of Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto at the time, smoking crack.

xp that is very interesting (srsly) but i continue to question why publishing nudes of anyone is necessary for gawker

the newsworthiness is not exactly different, but gawker (for instance) would have had to be as evil as its worst critics say it is to not consider what publishing the hacked reddit nudes would mean for its subjects.

i mean how is publishing a video of a florida woman having sex not worthy of that consideration?

the way the internet operates in 2015 necessitates a higher (very high) bar for publishing nude images of a female celebrity without her consent, whereas i think the bar for a male celeb's nudes is much, much lower. (this is all very imo for the record.

I think this is true but just because gawker is more likely to experience blowback for violating the privacy of women than men. I don't think there's that much of a moral difference between the tyga case and the j-law one except, like, everyone likes j-law and tyga sucks. tyga won't have to endure misogynistic responses, so it might not be as bad for him, but it still seems unpleasant

And if the issue is privacy violation, the distinction disappears

xp that is very interesting (srsly) but i continue to question why publishing nudes of anyone is necessary for gawker

― mookieproof, Sunday, July 12, 2015 9:35 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

well, i think the question is similar to what you have to consider with any extreme images (i.e. gore): are the images vital to tell the story? if so, how much? gawker institutionally leans towards openness on that front. for instance, last year we got intense flak from readers for linking to videos of isis killing hostages. at the same time there was a whole debate over whether media organizations should show images of, or link to, isis hostage videos because some people see it as being complicit in distributing propaganda. we still link to their videos.

in the hulk case, i (personally) think the clip of the video is vital for the story. aj's post is amazing -- a funny and painstakingly narrated, but still nonjudgemental, depiction of the life of an over the hill celebrity. it's a great piece of writing about a subject america has forever been fascinated by. but it's not as powerful now that the video is down.

like last year, gawker/i posted a video of a nude dov charney dancing with his employees. (we had to take the video down after a copyright claim.) i briefly described the video. everybody knows dov charney is a creep. it's not an even a secret. did we *really* need to see his dick swinging in the video to get the picture? i would still argue that we do, that it gives us an even fuller picture of dov charney (or hulk hogan!) and thus it should be published. (and my story as it stands now is significantly weakened because of it)

wait, are people actually arguing that it should be legal to publish videos/images of people having sex without their permission?!

xp think k3vin is referring to this from the New York Times article and remembering incorrectly:

“A lot of our traffic last year came from stories that we weren’t ultimately proud of,” Mr. Denton said. He cited Gawker Media’s biggest traffic sensation in 2014, a video compilation of people messing up the Ice Bucket Challenge that has attracted more than 16 million views. “You’re going to get a spike from a story like that, but at the end of the year, what does it say about your brand, and are you measuring that?” Mr. Denton would prefer to see his brand associated with the Manti T’eo story, or Gizmodo’s iPhone 4 scoop (in 2010, it bought a prototype of the as-yet-unreleased phone), or the 2013 post by a Gawker writer who had watched a cellphone video of Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto at the time, smoking crack.
― an asteroid could hit the planet (Sufjan Grafton), Sunday, July 12, 2015 9:30 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah I was confusing the two. it's hard not to read that in context and see it as sort of a hedge, tho

If there's a medal for mental gymnastics, it sounds like the Gawer staff is gunning for the gold.

I appreciate their responses. Gawker is sort of the avant garde of new media ethics, fortunately or unfortunately, and this is interesting

okay! guess i think a fair bit less of max and j0rd, which i was trying to avoid, but so it goes

and yes, sarahell

I mean, don't get me wrong. I don't like gawker and i definitely don't buy in to their revolution

i'm sorry but that's gross and closer to revenge porn than anything ...

still lol at joe for implying that gawker is doing some equivalent of releasing the Pentagon papers

if only this had all been on kinja

wait, are people actually arguing that it should be legal to publish videos/images of people having sex without their permission?!

― sarahell, Sunday, July 12, 2015 9:49 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark

thinking that it should be illegal is a pretty far right position, so yes this is an argument

all those feminists on the far right who are opposed to revenge porn and sexual exploitation

dunno about 'far right' ya libertarian

'Far right'. You are out of your fucking mind.

if you're talking about celebrity sex tapes the law is pretty clear about the legality of publishing them

that law should be changed then

the law was changed and someone published a celebrity sex tape against the will of the celebrity would you put that person in prison

it's not a violent crime, so i wouldn't put that person in prison, but fine them, award their victime $$ in a lawsuit, fuck yes.

out of curiosity, did gawker compensate the videographer